Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

(By Order)

RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords]

(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — Personal Pensions

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the Government Actuary's estimate that personal pensions schemes would cost the national insurance fund £2·018 billion in 1990–91 has been updated; what is his most recent estimate of the cost; and what the cost is expected to be in 1991–92.

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate of the cost of personal pensions schemes to the national insurance fund in 1990–91; and what is the cost expected to be in 1991–92.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government Actuary's latest estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund in 1990–91 of personal pensions is £1,910 million, assuming that 3·9 million personal pensions are in force by the end of 1989–90. If the assumed number in force remains unchanged to the end of 1990–91, then the estimated cost in 1991–92 is £2,090 million.

Mr. Haynes: This is another con trick by the Government. The Secretary of State did not admit, but I hope that he will, that the Government will run the insurance fund into a deficit of £500 million. That will be their answer. Who will suffer? In the main, it will be pensioners. That is how the Government treat pensioners. They should be ashamed of themselves. They are filling the pockets of the rich by pouring money into private pension funds so that somebody can get a nice rake-off at the expense of pensioners. It is a shocking state of affairs.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman made his points with his characteristic charm, but he appears not to have looked at the figures on the national insurance fund, which currently is running a surplus twice as high as the level recommended by the Government Actuary. It is expected to be higher in the forthcoming year, partly as a result of steps that I have already taken to deal with a problem that might otherwise have arisen. The earlier statistics show

that about 90 per cent. of people with personal pensions earn less than £13,000 and that more than 40 per cent. earn less than £6,000 a year. If the hon. Gentleman regards those people as rich, he is living in a dream world.

Mr. Jones: I cannot ask my question in the manner of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), but if, as the Secretary of State suggested, the fund is in surplus, why is it not being used to pay pensioners a decent pension in line with European pensions? Is not the net effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, that pensioners are paying for the profits being made by insurance companies?

Mr. Newton: Let us be clear, because there is considerable misunderstanding, that the overwhelming bulk of the cost is not the so-called incentive but the rebates for contracting out introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has not suggested the ending of contracting out. A major reason for the expected drop in the balance of the fund is the substantial reduction in national insurance contributions which the Government made last October to help many lower-paid people.

Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pensioners want financial security and stability in retirement? Do not employees have many choices—remaining in SERPS, taking out a personal pension or belonging to an occupational pension scheme? Why are Opposition Members so negative on this matter?

Mr. Newton: I must leave Opposition Members to explain that. Personal pensions have been an astonishing success, which reflects people's welcome of the greater choice that they now have. The Opposition's attitude is yet another illustration of their persistent unwillingness to let people decide things for themselves.

Mr. Meacher: On what possible grounds can even this Government spend £2 billion on a bribe for people to invest in a highly speculative and risky pension scheme when they freeze child benefit for three years, deny pensioners a share in rising national incomes by breaking the link with earnings and will not even financially protect pensioners from eviction from residential and nursing homes? When will the Government ever learn that the people totally repudiate that order of values?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that, in general, pensioners have not been sharing in the country's rising prosperity. I have always accepted that there are less well-off pensioners, whom we have been trying to help in other ways. Since the Conservative party took office, pensioners' incomes have, on average, been rising faster than those of the rest of the population, partly because of the growth of occupational and now personal pensions, adding to the security of provision for retirement. If the hon. Gentleman's remarks about rebates, which embrace the existing contracting-out—

Mr. Meacher: No.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman described as a bribe a sum, two thirds of which consists of the rebates introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. I take the hon. Gentleman's remarks as a clear threat to the continuation of those arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — Disabled People

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals to help people who are partially incapable of work.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We will be introducing, from April 1992, a wholly new benefit for this group, to be called the disability employment credit. For the first time, there will then be a benefit aimed specifically at helping disabled people to support themselves in work.

Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend announces an important measure which will give a good deal of self-respect to disabled people who wish to work. They will not now be penalised for doing so. Is he involved in consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to ensure that sufficient companies provide places of work and proper facilities for disabled people so that his Department's scheme can be fully taken up?

Mr. Scott: The Department of Employment already spends about £350 million a year to obtain work for disabled people and keep them in employment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly bring forward new proposals, to which the whole House will look forward, to provide services for disabled people.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister confirm that he expects to save £10 million on the new benefit, as I was told in a recent parliamentary reply, and that this must be a policy decision, as transparently it cannot have been based on detailed costings? Why is this such a big new deal for disabled people when the Government expect to save £10 million and will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a consultative document on this new benefit?

Mr. Scott: The Government obviously have a duty to produce the best estimate they can and to put it before the House. There is great uncertainty about the final expenditure on this benefit because we do not know what the take-up will be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not criticise the principle that disabled people who are in work but who perhaps are unable to work to full capacity should be supported by the benefit system.

Oral Answers to Questions — Income Support

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on income support entitlement in respect of elderly people living in private residential homes.

Mr. Newton: As I announced to the House on 28 March, I propose to make further substantial increases at a cost of £45 million from 13 August to the income support limits that apply to people in residential care and nursing homes. These are in addition to the increases in the limits which will take effect on 9 April and which are the largest increases since 1985, amounting to £100 million a year.

Mr Smith: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's concessions last week, does he accept that many thousands of sick and elderly people face a considerable shortfall on their residential costs in nursing and residential homes? The survey carried out by the National Federation of

Housing Associations showed that one in five faced a shortfall of £60 a week or more. Is not it time that the Secretary of State acted to help those people, to stop them facing eviction and to end the needless worry to which his policies have subjected them?

Mr. Newton: I have taken action that I think will contribute to the hon. Gentleman's objective. I repeat the point that I made towards the end of our debate on the subject last week. Many of the bodies to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the National Federation of Housing Associations and any other voluntary and charitable bodies—have made it clear to me that, although they believe that there should be an increase in the limits, they do not expect the Government necessarily to make up the full difference between the charges that the homes levy and the current income support limits, because it is part of their policy to provide a higher standard of amenity than they think it reasonable to expect the taxpayer to pay for.

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend's announcement last Wednesday was warmly received by those who run private residential homes and by the people who live in them. He will know that many wish to move to the new regime outlined last Wednesday as soon as practicable. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, if good progress is made in the current year in negotiating contracts between local authorities and private homes, income support can be raised in 1991–92 to the new levels envisaged in his statement?

Mr. Newton: I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend clearly last week: to the extent that we have good information about what local authorities are contracting to pay in advance of the next uprating due in April 1991, I shall, of course, ensure that that is taken into account in setting the limits for next year.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the £5 extra for elderly people in residential homes which he announced last week is little more than a gesture—merely the contribution to which he referred—given that the National Federation of Housing Associations survey found that in more than half of the homes the shortfall is now over £30 a week? If Conservative Back-Bench Members are satisfied with that, does not it show that they are far more concerned with propping up a Government on the ropes than with protecting 176,000 elderly and frail patients from eviction?

Mr. Newton: First, the hon. Gentleman neglected to acknowledge that the £15 extra is on top of the £10 increase that is about to take place, making £15 extra in all on the current limit of £140. That is an increase of significantly more than 10 per cent. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that the major pressure is undoubtedly on nursing homes, in respect of which I announced a further increase of £10, making £20 in all.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioners

Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures on the proportion of pensioners whose incomes fall in the lowest fifth of national income distribution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): The latest available


figures show that in 1987 only 24 per cent. of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of national income distribution, whereas in 1979, 38 per cent. of pensioners fell into the lowest fifth.

Mr. Lester: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures, which are the result of a policy consistently balanced between state provision and savings and between personal and superannuated pensions. Does she share my view about the remaining 24 per cent.—many of them in agricultural constituencies such as hers—who may have had no opportunity to take out superannuated pensions or make personal provision and who remain in a relatively difficult position? Will she undertake to keep her eye on the programme that we started for the over-75s which recognised their position?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the balanced nature of the Government's policies towards pensioners. He is also right to draw attention to the increase in pensioners' incomes from savings and occupational pensions. He mentioned the October package for older pensioners which we introduced to give them additional help through extra premiums. I remind him of the arrangements for disabled pensioners and for those over 75 and over 80. Finally, I remind him that between 1979 and 1989 expenditure on benefits for the elderly increased by 22 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the best way for the Government to help the 24 per cent. of people who are right at the bottom would be to take away the £26·2 billion that went to the 1 per cent. who are the wealthiest in the population in tax cuts over the past 10 years and hand that to the 24 per cent? At the same time, the Government should hand back the £12 a week that the 24 per cent. lost as a result of the Prime Minister and her Ministers cutting the link between earnings and prices for pensioners.

Mrs. Shephard: The Government have honoured their manifesto pledge to keep pensions in line with the rise in prices. I repeat that the most important point is the rise in pensioners' total incomes. I remind the hon. Gentleman that between 1979 and 1987 pensioners in the lowest quintile experienced a 19 per cent. increase in real terms in their average total net incomes.

Mr. David Martin: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of income from savings, will she raise with the Treasury the treatment of interest under the £16,000 savings rule, the majority of which, as I understand it, is treated as having a 20 per cent. return? If that cannot be changed, will my hon. Friend ask the Treasury where one can find investment yielding 20 per cent. net, because I would like to know myself?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend draws attention to the greatly welcomed increase in capital limits announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget. I remind my hon. Friend that 150,000 pensioners stand to gain as a result of the change in the rules on the capital limits. That was no mean achievement for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend appears to be confusing the capital limits and the 15p taper. For each £1 of tariff income, 15p is removed from the allowance made to the beneficiary. I

do not think that my hon. Friend has fully understood the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Social Fund

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the capacity of the social fund to respond to the claims of all the people in need (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland.

Mr. Scott: Since April 1988, the social fund has concentrated help on those most in need in Great Britain, principally recipients of income support, through the payment of 2·2 million loans and grants at a gross cost of £347 million. The corresponding figures for Scotland are 212,000 at a gross cost of over £34 million. Last week I announced an increased budget of £215 million for the fund in 1990–91.
Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that this is a disgraceful piece of legislation and that the social fund will take over from the loan sharks? Some of my constituents are a giro away from starvation and the social fund offers no help because of its cash limits. Does the Minister agree that it is time that we returned to single payments to deal with the problems of the poor?

Mr. Scott: As I recall, the single payments scheme did not have many friends on the Opposition Benches. It was subject to a great deal of criticism. Moving away from a scheme that depended entirely on whether claimants fitted the terms of particular regulations to one in which social fund officers can use their discretion within the limits of the budget is a great step in the right direction.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under the old single payments scheme many rackets were run by second-hand shops? Aided and abetted by some social workers, people handed in shopping lists for 130-odd items on demand. That could not be right; it was a licence to print money. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the new system—the social fund—has the merit of circulating the same amount of money, and more money as it is added to, and benefits many more people because the money must be repaid and people must think twice about the items for which they ask?

Mr. Scott: In was the latter point which enabled me to increase the gross budget to £215 million for the year that has just started. I agree with my hon. Friend that there was widespread abuse under the single payments scheme. The size of the budget was doubling every two years and we were right to get rid of it and move to the social fund.

Mr. Kennedy: Does not the Minister realise that the social fund has created a poverty cul-de-sac? Many people will not make the initial approach to inquire about support because they know that it will be in the form of a loan and that it will be debited from their other already meagre state benefits. What analysis has the Minister's Department carried out in Scotland and in the United Kingdom of the number of people who, after their initial approach when the changes were introduced, no longer even bother going


to their local DSS offices to find out whether support is available because they know that they cannot afford to pay it back?

Mr. Scott: As for analysis and research, apart from monitoring the position in our local offices, as the hon. Gentleman knows we have commissioned research by the social policy research unit at York university, and we look forward to its analysis of the position and in particular its judgment whether the social fund is meeting the needs that it was designed to meet. I should think that we shall get the report early next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioners

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average increase in incomes since 1979 for those pensioners who receive all of their income from state benefits.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that between 1979 and 1987 pensioners who received all their income from state benefits had experienced a real terms increase of over 27 per cent. At the same time the proportion of pensioners in this position fell from 22·5 per cent. in 1979 to 15·9 per cent. in 1987.

Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Given that the Conservatives will be in charge of this country for the next decade as well, will she assure hon. Members that the group of people who were long-term unemployed at the end of the 1970s will receive the same consideration as old-age pensioners who depend on state benefits at the moment?

Mrs. Shephard: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to apply successful social security policies which in turn depend on a successful economy. When they are re-elected, the Government will do just that.

Mr. Eastham: Are not the figures that the Minister presented rather misleading when one considers that VAT, gas bills, and electricity bills have nearly doubled and that people will have to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of the poll tax?

Mrs. Shephard: No, Sir. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures that I have given represent a real terms increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — Personal Pensions

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people who have taken out appropriate personal pensions.

Mr. Newton: Just over 3·6 million people have so far taken out appropriate personal pensions.

Mr. Hayes: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend says and accept that pensioners on the state pension had an increase of 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1987. But does my right hon. Friend aggreciate that not everyone regards the state pesion as a top-up and that, despite the Government's generosity and his Department's commitment, many people find it difficult to make ends meet? Will my right hon. Friend try in the next few months to bring forward some imaginative proposals to help people who are in serious difficulties?

Mr. Newton: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that we regard the state basic retirement pension—the national insurance pension—not as a top-up but as the foundation of provision for retirement. That is why we have protected its value. The important point is that personal pensions and occupational pensions are a growing part of people's income in retirement, and we welcome that. We also acknowledge that not everybody has such pensions or savings. It is to that group that we directed an additional £200 million last October. I note my hon. Friend's proper ambition to see the process go further.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State share the anxiety of the regulatory body, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, which has described the advertising of personal pensions as wildly inaccurate? Does he agree with the independent pension investment research consultant who estimated that at least 1 million people will end up with totally indequate pensions because they have opted to leave SERPS? As that deception of 1 million people has been the result of Government legislation, when will the Secretary of State announce his plan to inform those people that their only chance of a decent pension is to return to SERPS?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, I do not accept the basic thrust of the analysis implied in the hon. Gentleman's question. It was Government legislation, the Financial Services Act 1986, that set up LAUTRO—that is the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation—precisely to ensure that advertising of financial services of all types was proper and not misleading. That very fact shows our concern to ensure that people are properly advised.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Benefit

Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value of child benefit it it had been uprated in line with inflation over the past three years.

Mr. Scott: The value would be £8·60 a week from later this month.

Mr. Orme: Is not that figure an indictment of the Government's policy and of the amount of which parents and children have been robbed? When will the Minister's Department stand up for child benefit? In the past, the Secretary of State was known to be an open supporter of such a benefit, so why are not he and his colleagues fighting to ensure that there is an uprating every year and that mothers and children receive the benefits to which they are entitled?

Mr. Scott: Child benefit remains important help for many families—in fact, for 6·7 million families. I tend to share the view of Mrs. Castle, when she was Secretary of State and introduced the benefit, that indexation of child benefit would be inappropriate and that Parliament would wish to exercise its judgment about the balance of family support, year by year.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the existence of virtually any rate of inflation is a precise and inescapable index of the fact that the community as a whole has overfunded its requirements in relation to resources by precisely that amount? To the extent that a


beneficiaries—or any one else in society—have their income guaranteed by uprating, is not that a guarantee that inflation will continue? If not, does my right hon. Friend agree that that creates the massive problem of who will bear the burden of reducing inflation?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend has added yet another reason why it is inappropriate to index this benefit, as has been suggested by the Opposition. For other reasons, we need to assess our priorities on family support each year when the time comes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Personal Pensions

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about his proposals requiring a pension scheme to fund increases on wind-up.

Mr. Newton: We have received a number of representations, some suggesting possible repercussions for certain businesses and some suggesting that a requirement for pension increases should apply generally. In the light of the representations, I announced that pension schemes will be required to pay annual increases on pensions resulting from future service. On pensions based on past service, in addition, where schemes have a surplus, they will have to guarantee increases to members.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those proposals represent a major step forward in the protection of millions of people who hold occupational pensions? Does he further acknowledge that the greatest protection for holders of pensions is a strong economy and low inflation? Can he give the House any details about pensioners' incomes from occupational pensions since 1979?

Mr. Newton: My answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The average income received by a pensioner with an occupational pension was nearly £45 a week in 1987, which represents a 77 per cent. increase over the amount received in 1979.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioners

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of (a) all pensioners and (b) recently retired pensioners are receiving income from savings.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The latest available figures show that in 1987, 73 per cent. of all pensioners and 82 per cent. of recently retired pensioners received income from savings.

Mr. Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are encouraging, and is she aware that in 1987 only 24 per cent. of pensioners were in the bottom fifth of national income distribution, whereas in 1979 the figure was 38 per cent? Does she agree that that, too, is encouraging and does she further agree that the Budget will further encourage savings?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the encouragement to save given in the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly the measure known as TESSAs, or tax-exempt

special savings accounts, which will further increase the value of pensioners' savings. The abolition of the composite rate of tax will also particularly help pensioners.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the Minister clear up the points raised earlier by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin)? Why are pensioners' savings over £3,000 deemed by her Department and other Departments to give them a return of 20·8 per cent. per annum, when nowhere can that percentage return be found with safety? Should pensioners look for another Barlow Clowes in order to achieve it? Can the Minister give us a list, which we should be happy to pass on to our pensioners, of where they can find that return on their savings?

Mrs. Shephard: The point about the £1 per week in income that is assumed for each £250 of capital over £3,000 is that it helps to take into account the resources of a claimant in order to target help on those most in need. It is true that some claimants will be taken out of entitlement to benefit because their total income, including tariff income—which is not actual income from savings —is sufficiently high to disqualify them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter of taking out pound For pound. The assumption is that there is an income of £1 per £250, but the amount that is taken from the allowance paid in benefit is 15p in each pound, which is a generous taper —much more generous than under the previous arrangement.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that as it is proper to encourage saving now for the future, we should not penalise those who saved in the past, and there should be a closer relationship between deemed income and real income? Would she kindly have a word with her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has shown himself to be devoted to savers and savings?

Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that my hon. Friend is capable himself of having a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should realise that as a result of the measures, among people with £10,000 of savings, there will be about 70,000 gainers in community charge benefit and about 25,000 gainers in housing benefit. In both cases, it is about half the total number of gainers. That is not a discouragement to savers.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimation has been made by his Department of the effect of the budget on pensioners' households.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget last month—many of which will benefit pensioners, and some of which I have already mentioned.

Mr. Winnick: Welcome as the raising of the ceiling on savings undoubtedly is—the Opposition have pressed for it for a long time—what justification can there possibly be for pensioners whose total income is £61·81 a week to pay £18 a week in rent, due entirely to the drastic cut in housing benefit in 1988, details of which—and of other cases from my constituency—I have sent to the Minister? Why do the Government continue to treat pensioners with such contempt?

Mrs. Shephard: There will be many gainers within housing benefit, precisely from the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some 75,000 pensioners as individuals will gain from those announcements.

Oral Answers to Questions — Maintenance Payments

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures are being taken to make the arrangements for recovering maintenance from absent fathers more effective; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: We are reviewing the maintenance system to see what changes need to be made in the way that maintenance is assessed and collected, and plan to bring forward proposals later this year. Meanwhile, we are seeking to improve the existing system in various ways, most recently by the proposals contained in a new clause added to the Social Security Bill last week. The amount of maintenance received for lone-parent families on benefit increased from £155 million in 1988–89 to an expected £180 million in 1989–90, and we plan a further increase to £260 million in 1990–91.

Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable hardship suffered by lone wives and lone mothers when fathers refuse to pay maintenance, sometimes even after court orders have given them instructions to do so? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those absent fathers are cheating not only their own children but the taxpayer, because the £200 million to which he referred could be better spent elsewhere in the social security system?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I have no doubt that it is right to improve maintenance arrangements in the interests of lone parents and their children, and to ensure that financial responsibilities do not necessarily fall on the taxpayer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Child Benefit

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the uprating of child benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members, organisations and individuals expressing a wide variety of views.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister persuade the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Prime Minister that, following the Government's U-turn on capital allowances in respect of poll tax, they should take another look at child benefit? Does not the Minister agree that the most cynical form of attack on the incomes of ordinary families is to allow child benefit to wither on the vine? The Government do not have the guts to abolish it altogether, and realise that its value should stay in line with purchasing power and be uprated each year. Will the Minister inform his ministerial colleagues that the 7·6 million families who receive child benefit know, like the lone parents to whom the previous question referred, that it is free of any stigma—which is why it is so important to the mothers of this country?

Mr. Scott: There is no policy of allowing child benefit to wither on the vine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary

of State has a duty, year by year, to review that benefit in the light of several factors. In recent years, we decided to concentrate help on less well-off families, poorer pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled, rather than uprate child benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Committal Procedure

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General if there are any proposals for changes in the committal for trial procedure; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): A consultation paper on mode of trial procedure and committal proceedings was issued jointly by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department on 27 July 1989. A copy was placed in the Library, and the responses are now being considered.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there is widespread concern that the committal procedure should be improved. Does he share the view held by practitioners and many others affected that the present system is slow, ineffective, expensive, and thereby unjust? If he does, how soon will all those shortcomings be put right?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has obviously read the consultation paper. The shortcomings that he mentioned are among the many reasons why we put the matter out for consultation, to try to produce an improved procedure.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about recruitment to the Crown prosecution service.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The recruitment of law clerks and support staff is generally satisfactory. The recruitment of lawyers has improved steadily, with total numbers in post rising from 1,200 in 1986 to just under 1,600 today. There is an overall shortage of lawyers of about 20 per cent., but that is partly due to the complement being increased by 25 per cent. Recent improvements in pay, newly authorised changes in the career structure and a very promising legal trainee scheme will all improve the ability of the service to recruit and retain able lawyers.

Mr. Marshall: In view of events in north London recently, is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the CPS is as competent as it might be?

The Attorney-General: I believe that my hon. Friend refers to an episode on a Saturday two or three weeks ago in Brent magistrates court, which I dealt with fully in a written answer on 23 March to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and in a Select Committee of this House. That was a regrettable case of human failure coupled with a deficiency in the system. Steps have been taken to remedy the system in that branch and to ensure that all other branches check their own systems.

Mr. Fraser: I acknowledge the very full explanation that the Attorney-General provided of that incident. If to


reduce the number of people held in custody and prison numbers, we were to adopt the Scottish system of ensuring that all defendants go to trial within 100 days of being charged, when would the CPS be able to cope with such a time scale?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that there is any deficiency in the ability of the CPS to cope. Time limits of that order and in some cases, less are already in force. In Manchester a limit of 112 days between committal and arraignment has been in force since April 1988.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

The Attorney-General: I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on 27 March when we discussed matters of departmental interest.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Attorney-General confirm that incitement to murder is an extremely serious criminal offence? Can he explain why those in Britain who have in the past year called for the murder of a British citizen have had no action taken against them? Surely it is necessary for the law to apply to all.

The Attorney-General: Of course, the law should apply to all and of course, the offence of incitement to murder is extremely grave. The hon. Gentleman's question has been dealt with by me in an answer to a previous question in the House and has been debated on more than one occasion in another place. The Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly expressed his view that incitement to murder is always a very grave offence. He has drawn the attention of chief constables throughout the country to that view and to the context in which he expressed it, that is, the Salman Rushdie affair.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, in relation to that matter, that there could have been no question, one hopes, of such a decision being taken purely on the grounds of political policy?

The Attorney-General: No decision is ever taken purely on the grounds of political consequence, if I heard my hon. Friend's last word correctly, nor is it ever taken on grounds of partisan interest. In this case, the decision was taken entirely on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of an admissible nature to give rise to a reasonable prospect of a conviction. That is the test which the code for Crown prosecutors imposes. It is only once that test has been passed that the question arises for any prosecutor as to whether the public interest requires a prosecution. That stage was never reached on that occasion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that perjury is always a very serious offence? Is he satisfied that the perjury committed to obtain entry into London's financial markets and the ownership of a major London business has been considered properly in connection with the Harrods affair?

The Attorney-General: Of course, I agree that perjury is always a serious offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know, of course, that by statute there are certain

evidential tests to be passed for the prosecution of perjury. The Directors of the Serious Fraud Office and of Public Prosecutions issued a joint statement in which they made clear the reason why no prosecution was being brought for that or any other offence in the case of the Fayeds.

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Attorney-General when he will next be meeting the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the criteria on which it is decided to bring forward a prosecution.

The Attorney-General: I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and I expect to do so again this week. The code for Crown prosecutors provides that the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings should depend upon the availability of sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction and upon the public interest requiring a prosecution.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the public will welcome that clarification, because many hon. Members receive letters asking why prosecutions are not brought in certain cases? Will he assure me that those guidelines are under regular review?

The Attorney-General: The guidelines are reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions as the code is repeated as an appendix to the Director's annual report, which is made to me and published. I believe that, in this respect, they are sensible and right, but the Director is always open to suggestions for a variation of them. However, we believe that they have stood the test of time and are fair, sensible and provide a realistic and proper guide.

Ms. Mowlam: Does the Attorney-General believe that the code is working properly when it takes well over 12 months to review many cases involving police accidents? As he well knows, we in Cleveland have been waiting well over 12 months for a number of cases, about which we have already written to him. We have been told that there have been delays and problems in record keeping. We should like to know this, for both the police and families involved: does the Attorney-General consider that the DPP and the Crown prosecution service are doing the job adequately when people are having to wait that long for decisions?

The Attorney-General: I think that the hon. Lady would wish to provide a specific instance of what she regards as an unwarrantable delay. There are two types of criticism on the use of the state's prosecuting power: first, that it takes a long time for decisions to be made for a prosecution to be brought and secondly, that a prosecution has been brought hastily—either of which can lead to injustice. There must be a diligent examination of the evidence available; where that evidence is insufficient, a request should be made to the police to see whether it can be improved. If it cannot be improved, then—not until then—the prosecution must be abandoned.

Trials (Delays)

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Attorney-General what is the average delay between committal and trial in central London, Maidstone, Bristol, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.

The Solicitor-General: The average waiting time between committal to the Crown court and start of hearing is 17 weeks in central London, in Maidstone court administrators group it is 13 weeks, in Bristol it is 15 weeks, in the Cardiff group it is nearly seven weeks, in the Manchester group it is just over 11 weeks, in the Leeds group it is 14 weeks and in the Birmingham group it is 9·6 weeks.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Solicitor-General agree that there is even more delay when the person committed is in one of our prisons or remand homes?

The Solicitor-General: I should agree, not that there is more delay, but that the delay is more serious if someone is in custody. We take that very much into account when trying to ensure that such cases are brought on more quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Vietnam

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has given any further consideration to restoring bilateral aid to Vietnam.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 12 March.

Mr. Boyes: It is a bit tricky to ask me to refer to something without giving me notice. Is not it a fact that Vietnam has done all that it can to meet the conditions set by the Minister before aid can be resumed? For example, there have been reforms in the economy, including the introduction of market forces and the lifting of some state controls. In those circumstances, how can the Minister justify withholding aid to one of the poorest countries in the world?

Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the previous oral Question Time and the debate that we had on the night of 27 March. We believe that Vietnam is seeking to put its economy in order, but it has not yet agreed even a shadow programme with international financial institutions and still has outstanding arrears of more than $133 million to the International Monetary Fund and $6 million to the Asian development bank. As soon as a shadow programme is in place, I hope that we shall be able to continue the work, which we have already begun, on possible aid projects for Vietnam.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is not the resolution of the problem of the Vietnamese boat people closely linked to the need to bring Vietnam back into the community of nations? Will my right hon. Friend make that point when she next visits her opposite number in Washington?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are awaiting a reply from Foreign Minister Thach of Vietnam to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As soon as we hear that the Vietnamese are prepared to take responsibility for their people, who are to return to

Vietnam, we shall be in a far better position to continue our efforts. I shall make those points when I visit Washington later this month.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does not the Minister accept that the IMF report commends Vietnam for making every effort to meet its payments? Does not she agree that, despite its policy, it has taken out a commercial bank loan in an attempt to clear its debts? How can she justify Vietnam being the only one of the poorest 50 countries in the world to which Britain gives no aid? If she accepts, as she did in the debate on 27 March, that poverty is acute in that country and assistance needed, why does not she have the courage of her convictions and restore bilateral aid to that desperate country?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady heard me say in the debate in question that it was an IMF staff report. The report has not yet been accepted by the IMF board. I explained during the debate that there must be a high percentage of agreement. In the meantime, we hope that Vietnam will have a shadow programme, because that will enable us further to consider what we are already doing in terms of aid through non-governmental organisations for Vietnam. All countries that want to receive programme aid are being required by the donor community to have an economic recovery programme; that is what is needed for Vietnam, as well as the resolution of the Vietnamese boat people problem.

Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for aid to Vietnam, which overarches the issue of the boat people? It is, after all, one of the poorest countries in the world, and a programme that invited the Vietnamese Government to change the economic framework in which other people were being asked to work would benefit that country and its neighbours very much.

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but certain elements are required by all donors. We have been examining possible routes for aid in preparation, not only on the basis of the NGO suggestions to us three weeks ago, but by looking at the United Nations development programme projects. Later this month when the Mekong committee meets again to discuss the water-sharing agreement for the Mekong basin, a United Kingdom observer will be present, and we shall see whether that will afford a route for assistance in future when a programme is agreed.

ODA Training (Women)

Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that data are collected on the percentage of women participating in Overseas Development Administration training provided in developing countries.

Mrs. Chalker: In-country training takes place under a variety of local arrangements, sometimes at the level of individual capital projects. In these circumstances precise statistics are difficult to gather, but we have already taken action to improve our data collection.

Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister accept that, given that as many as 80 per cent. of women in developing countries are involved in agriculture, it is important that any training involves and reaches women in those countries?

Mrs. Chalker: I thoroughly agree with what the hon. Lady says, but providing training for women in some of these developing countries is not a straightforward matter, because very often it is the Governments of the recipient countries who nominate. As they nominate so few women, it is difficult to include them, but if the hon. Lady refers to a report published a year ago, entitled "Women, Development and the British Aid Programme", she will find a good deal of detail on the way in which we are helping such women.

Miss Widdecombe: What steps are being taken by Britain to encourage recipient Governments to nominate more women to development projects? Once the problem has been analysed, what practical steps can this country take?

Mrs. Chalker: We continue to press recipient countries to nominate more women; it is a point which comes up in every aid discussion that I have with Presidents and Prime Ministers wherever I go in the world.

European Single Market

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has sought from the European Commission a comprehensive assessment of the effects of 1992 in the European Community on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

Mrs. Chalker: The United Kingdom has pressed for greater openness in trading in the EC, especially in the fourth Lome convention, to ensure that countries such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific states are able to benefit fully from the single market. The new Loméconvention contains positive arrangements for 1992 on commodities that uphold traditional commitments and meet our single market objectives.

Mr. Williams: I accept the Minister's concern about this matter, but how does she explain that the DG-I study seems to concentrate on Asia and Latin America while excluding some of the poorest Commonwealth areas in the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa? Why are we not making stronger representations for their inclusion?

Mrs. Chalker: I know that it is complicated, but the detail is as follows: DG-I is the directorate general of the Community, which looks after Asia and Latin America. Commissioner Marin, who looks after African, Caribbean

and Pacific countries, heads up DG-VIII, which is a separate division. That also takes account of the assistance necessary for those countries under Lomé4.

Mr. Lester: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made on abolishing European Community quotas for Caribbean rum?

Mrs. Chalker: The United Kingdom secured an agreement at the last Lomé round, which will permit all Caribbean exports to the Community to come forward. In addition, national quotas are being phased out and we have a binding commitment after that, I think in 1995, to end Community quotas on rum as well. It was the United Kingdom action that achieved the start to the end of quotas on rum.

Sir David Steel: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the vast bulk of African debt is owed to European Community countries. Since 1992 will mean a leap forward in our prosperity in Europe, does she agree that that would be the time to take a collective initiative in the European Community to relieve African debt?

Mrs. Chalker: I expect that the Commissioner concerned will be putting a recommendation to the EC development committee at the end of May, when we shall consider it.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that the countries that will be harmed most by the advent of 1992 are those which are most vulnerable—especially Mozambique and Ethiopia? Why has she not answered the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mrs. Williams) and said that she and her colleagues will carry out a comprehensive review to identify which countries will be harmed by 1992 and what should be done to help them?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Overseas Development Institute inquiry reckons that, on balance, there will not be difficulties. We are, of course, totally prepared to look at the effect on Mozambique and Ethiopia and other poor countries. In the light of our considerable help to them, we are greatly aware of what needs to be done. There is no point in expecting trouble when the harmonisation of standards will mean that those countries that gain most through trade and not from aid will have just one hurdle to overcome instead of 12.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it later.

London March (Disorder)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the disorder in central London last Saturday.
It is with a sense of outrage that I make this statement today and I am sure that that outrage is shared by all hon. Members. Hon Members will have seen on television some of the acts of criminal violence and viciousness which occurred and which no decent person could fail to condemn—condemn without reservation.
At the end of the day's events, 339 people had been arrested for public order and other criminal offences, including riot, affray and criminal damage. Some 374 officers of the 2,198 on duty were injured, of whom 58 required hospital treatment. Several officers were knocked unconscious, others received head injuries, and one officer sustained a fractured jaw and is still in hospital and has either now had or is about to have an operation. Eighty-six members of the public have reported injuries. Some of those people were in no way concerned in the demonstration but were bystanders who were attacked by the mob. Forty police horses were used and 20 were injured. There have been about 250 reports of damage to property, but the full extent of it has yet to be assessed.
I shall now turn to the day's events. At about noon the demonstrators wishing to take part in the march began to assembly at Kennington park, and at 1 o'clock they set off. More or less at the outset a group tried to take over the head of the march, but the police and stewards prevented them. However, as the march went up Whitehall, small groups began to leave the main body and congregate opposite the entrance to Downing street. A group sat down, partly obstructing the remainder of the march and encouraging others to do so. Most of the marchers carried on. Another group attempted to pull down the barriers and break the police line. Some arrests were made and further officers were called up in support, but the troublemakers refused to move on and, increasingly, the police line came under violent attack from missiles.
Meanwhile, the remainder of the march had been halted at the bottom of Whitehall and a previously agreed diversion was set up which sent the march up Bridge street, Victoria embankment and Northumberland avenue. The police had by then brought in mounted officers to help move the hard core of troublemakers up Whitehall and into Trafalgar square, and when this was achieved, a cordon was set up on the junction of Whitehall and Trafalgar square. This cordon, however, came under severe attack from people in the square.
At 4.40 pm the rally ended and most of those assembled dispersed peacefully, but about 3,000 troublemakers remained behind, the hard core having assembled near the building site at the corner of Northumberland avenue. Scaffolding was dismantled and used as missiles. As police officers cleared demonstrators from the site, the site huts were set alight. South Africa house nearby was attacked, a window broken and a small fire started. Officers protecting the front of the embassy came under severe attack. Mounted officers were brought in to help; and using officers with protective clothing and mounted officers, the police set about dispersing the troublemakers, who split up into four groups, each of which then went on

the rampage, looting shops and causing damage to property and vehicles—even attacking a car with people inside. It was not until later in the evening that they finally dispersed.
All responsible Members of the House and the country at large will wish to condemn unreservedly the disgraceful criminal behaviour which occurred. All responsible members of society will wish to join me in paying tribute to the police for the courage and restraint which they showed in dealing with some of the most ferocious violence we have ever seen on the streets of London. I should also like to thank the ambulance and fire services for the part that they played during and in the aftermath of the disorders.
The police are now going to make every effort to bring to justice those who committed these appalling crimes. A team of 100 officers has been set up to take charge of this major criminal investigation. There is plenty of evidence available, in the form of photographs and film, to enable those responsible to be identified, and I hope that all sections of the press and television will co-operate to the full with the police investigation.
I have called for a full report from the Commissioner on the day's events and he will be reviewing what lessons are to be learnt from what occurred.
The right of peaceful demonstration is one which I will always defend, but the scenes in our capital city on Saturday had nothing whatsoever to do with peaceful demonstration. Clearly, a large number of people set off bent on violence. There can be no justification whatsoever for the savage and barbaric acts that millions saw on their television screens—not just in Britain but also, sadly, round the world. A clear message must go from this House that those responsible should be brought to justice.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Labour party condemns, without reservation or qualification, the violence which took place in and around Trafalgar square last Saturday. In a democratic society, no cause can justify such conduct. It is literally intolerable.
May I offer the sympathy of Opposition Members to those police officers who were injured while trying to perform the near-impossible task of containing such a large number of rioters. We also offer our sympathy to the innocent civilians who were the inevitable victims of the riot. Of course we are grateful to the police and the ambulance and fire services for the duties which they performed.
May we offer our support to those parts of the Prime Minister's Sunday statement, echoed by the Home Secretary today, which defended the right of a free people to demonstrate peaceably? We endorse her view that a way must be found of ensuring that peaceful demonstrations are not hijacked by a lawless minority.
Of course we welcome the criminal investigation that has been set up, and I echo the Home Secretary's hope that it will be afforded every possible assistance.
Has the Home Secretary considered a fuller inquiry of the sort which the Prime Minister seemed to be suggesting on television yesterday evening? Such an inquiry could examine every aspect of the disturbance from the strategy for its containment to the individuals and organisations responsible for the riots. It is inconceivable that violence on such a scale was spontaneous. On Saturday, I called for exemplary sentences for those who were convicted of


committing criminal acts. May I today emphasise the importance—perhaps the greater importance—of prosecuting those who planned and organised the mayhem?
I understand that journalists have given the Home Secretary—as they have given me—copies of material circulated during Saturday's demonstration by an organisation advocating violence for violence's sake. In its broadsheet, that organisation wrote:
Scraps with cops may not stop the poll tax but … who needs an excuse for a fight with the bill?
That organisation can be identified. It seems to me that it has certainly committed an indictable offence which should result in immediate prosecution.
I conclude as I began, by reiterating what I know to be the spirit of the whole House. All democrats will combine in demanding the rooting out of the threat to our free society which was perpetrated by individuals and organisations who were responsible for the disgraceful scenes and conduct in the capital last Saturday.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the violence, for his remarks about the part played by the police and for his sympathy for the police and civilians who were injured. I am also grateful for his thanks to the police and the ambulance and fire services. There will be two inquiries: criminal investigation and an inquiry carried out by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to see what lessons can be learnt from what occurred. There is no doubt that there were organisations bent on violence and their part in this sad affair will be thoroughly examined.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the whole House and the people of Britain owe a great debt of gratitude to the Metropolitan police for the way in which they defended the principle of parliamentary democracy and freedom last Saturday? We wish the police officers who have been injured a speedy recovery, especially those who remain in hospital. Does he further agree that when the inquiries are undertaken they should include an investigation into the identity of the anti-poll tax lobby, what affiliation it has with other political groups, how it is funded, how it organised the motorcade of young people into London last Saturday, why so many young people came, whether some of them were paid and what were the links with the disorder that subsequently occurred that evening?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the part played by the police and for his wishes for a speedy recovery to those officers who were injured. My hon. Friend asks who was behind the anti-poll tax demonstration. I gather that the part played by Militant is well known and that something over 500 buses were used to bring people into the centre of London—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is wrong with that?"] People have a right to demonstrate peacefully and, as I have already said, I firmly stand for that right, but I hope that the organisers of such demonstrations will remember the appalling burdens that they place on the police who have better things to do, the inconvenience—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary.

Mr. Waddington: We now know from the events on Saturday the danger that they cause to ordinary citizens, the likelihood of criminal elements attaching themselves to

those demonstration as an excuse for violence and the appalling damage that this sort of incident does to our reputation abroad.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, express our outright condemnation of this predetermined violence, which puts in peril freedom of assembly and expression in this country? Those who foster violence are the enemies of our society. We are deeply sympathetic to not only the police, who faced great personal danger, but the innocent members of the public who were injured, and we are grateful for the courage shown by many people in terrifying circumstances. Will the inquiries consider the apparently large discrepancies between the number of demonstrators claimed by the police and the number claimed by the organisers? How many were present and what agreements were reached with the police under the Public Order Act 1986 before the holding of the meetings?

Mr. Waddington: Once again, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy for the police and members of the public who suffered injury. He is right to join us all in condemning the violence. I referred to an inquiry that will be carried out by the Commissioner to see what lessons can be learnt from what occurred.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many people were involved in the demonstration. I gather that the organisers issued some quite extraordinary figures, and that they did so before the march began, but I am told by the police that the figure is more than 40,000. The organisers of the march were in touch with the police. After this vicious element —"element" is perhaps the wrong word, because it suggests only a few, when it could have been as many as 3,000—started attacking the police in Whitehall, the police managed to get the rest of the march turned round at the bottom of Whitehall and showed commendable presence of mind in so doing.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's experience that if open meetings of crowds of peole are exhorted to break the law it inevitably ends in violence? Does he expect those who so exhorted that crowd on Saturday to be condemned by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Waddington: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. It does not help if hon. Members exhort peole to break the law. Do they expect those whom they seek to influence to draw a neat distinction between one sort of law-breaking and another? Do they expect the people whom they seek to influence to break the tax not to be encouraged to break policemen's heads? Hon. Members —it is estimated that up to 30 of them are involved—who have been exhorting people to break the law should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Benn.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for saying in his opening remarks that the whole House would share his view that violence was wrong. No hon. Member of this House advocates, supports or condones violence. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his statement, that view was shared by the organisers of the demonstration who throughout co-operated fully with the police. In Glasgow, where the same organisation planned


the same sort of demonstration, there was no violence. I ask the Home Secretary to accept that peaceful protest has long extended to conscientious objection, of which the suffragettes were some of the most notable examples. Peaceful conscientious objection is absolutely legitimate.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be a public inquiry, headed by a High Court judge, which could hear the evidence of those who were present? Will he bear it in mind that, after his predecessor had made a similar statement at the time of Wapping, the Northamptonshire police produced a report that included criticism of the Metropolitan police? That inquiry was commissioned by the Government of the day. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that British history shows that despair and a sense of social injustice have often lain at the roots of civil disturbance, and that the Government have a heavy responsibility for that?

Mr. Waddington: Again, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in so far as he condemns violence, but he seems to be very selective on the question of which laws people should obey and which laws they are exempted from obeying. I see no parallel between the present situation and the suffragettes. I cannot remember the right hon. Gentleman condemning the appalling violence at Wapping and Orgreave.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Metropolitan police are extremely grateful for his generous tribute, which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? Does he agree that they acted efficiently and courageously and that the terrible toll of 374 officers and 20 horses injured reflects probably the worst violence that we have seen this century? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House, the public and the police that every effort will be made from the film and videotape recordings of this affair to identify those who are responsible and to prosecute them quickly with the full rigour of the law? While my right hon. and learned Friend is about it, will he ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to take a close look at one of the fringe organisations known, I believe, as Class War, a representative of which on radio today, referring to Saturday, said, "We had a wonderful day"?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right that the police acted efficiently and courageously. All of us are unreserved in our admiration for them. I assure my hon. Friend that every effort will be made to identify the criminals involved. A great deal of film is already available, and I hope that all those who have other film in their possession will make it available to the police. I shall certainly follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion and see what information we have about the people behind Class War.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Home Secretary agree that if the analysis that is being made of this very serious event in the metropolis this weekend is at the level that it was caused by a letter from 30 Members of Parliament, it is no wonder that the crime rate is growing so high and there is violence in prisons, because we are not facing up to the causes in our society and what it is all about? Cheap political speeches on

television do nothing for someone like me who is concerned about this situation. One says in one's drawing room, "Oh, my God, they will politicise anything." Would it not be better to have a full inquiry and find out what motivates the people who were involved, from where they get their money and what sort of education they have had —[Interruption.]—because they are not the people who vote for my hon. Friends or me— Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Rees.

Mr. Rees: It is time that we found out what is going wrong in a society in which law and order are breaking down.

Mr. Waddington: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that those whom I saw yesterday afternoon were certainly not Tory voters—

Hon. Members: Thatcher's children.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House is concerned about this matter. I hope that we shall not make it a party political issue.

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that it is very helpful, after criminal wickedness of this sort, to talk about the need for an investigation into the causes of violence. I think that one can identify quite easily the cause of the violence in this case—sheer wickedness.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) just said? There can never be too many tributes to the police for the courage that they show in doing their duty in the face of such savagery. What really matters is that those responsible should be brought swiftly to justice. Can my right hon. and learned Friand assure me that he expects the full collaboration of the television authorities and everybody else in making the necessary evidence fully available to him?

Mr. Waddington: I certainly hope that they will do so. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that it is important that those who committed these wicked acts should be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In his wide-ranging inquiry, will the Home Secretary take the trouble to contact the Strathclyde police? Will he compare the events in London with the peaceful rally that was held in Glasgow and remember that we in Scotland have been demonstrating peacefully against the poll tax for three years? I have been demonstrating in that city for 40 years, and Saturday's rally was the best and most peaceful that I have attended over that long period.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman compare and contrast the media coverage given to the events in London with that given to the peaceful rally in Glasgow and remember that we have suffered the poll tax for a year now—not in silence? Will he ask the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, who she has the stomach to fight, now that she is fighting her own Back-Benchers, her own Government and the people of Scotland? I will tell her, through the Home Secretary: we will not bend the knee to her poll tax; we will not bend the knee to her state-sponsored violence against the poorer sections of the population. We will demonstrate peacefully—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.

Mr. Douglas: I abhor attacks on the peace and I abhor violence. I have fought against violence all my life, but I have also fought against injustice to the poorer sections of the population.

Mr. Waddington: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right that rallies and demonstrations can take place peacefully. One reason why sometimes rallies do not take place peacefully is the inflammatory language used by some people which is calculated to lead certain elements in society to use violence. That is why it is important that all those involved in such demonstrations should realise how irresponsible it is to urge people to defy the law. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that there was little media coverage of a demonstration that passed off without incident, but it is hardly surprising, in view of the terrible events that took place in London, that the media focused on those events.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend mark the contrast between the wise and responsible words of the shadow Home Secretary this afternoon and the manifest failure of a large number of Labour Members to endorse those words?

Mr. Waddington: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I only criticised the shadow Home Secretary when he asked us at this juncture of all junctures to start analysing the causes of crime. I certainly could not agree with that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that the vast majority of people on that demonstration were there to demonstrate peacefully and that the organisers were assured in their determination that the demonstration would be peaceful? Is it not also a fact that extremists on the street need extremists in government and that with the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to the Home Secretary, the extremists in our society have all the cause and justification that they need?

Mr. Waddington: That is just the sort of violent language that leads to violence in the streets.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in April 1981, in the Brixton disorders, 143 policemen were injured when 7,300 were deployed, while on Saturday 370 were injured when only 2,000 were employed? Does not that suggest that the low-profile policing which the march organisers wanted failed? Will he give an undertaking that never again will the capital city be subjected to under-policing on an occasion of such sensitivity?

Mr. Waddington: It is impossible to say that there was under-policing. A vast number of police officers were on duty and when the trouble broke out even more were called to the scene. The truth of the matter is that in a civilised society we expect the citizens of this country to behave in a civilised manner. On this occasion, it was not a few, but 3,000 or so, members of our society who behaved in a most disgraceful, criminal and uncivilised fashion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the subsequent business. We have another important statement after this and this is a day in which, even if I were

to put a limit of five minutes on speeches, not every hon. Member would be called. I will allow three more questions from each side of the House and then we must move on.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Home Secretary accept from me and on behalf of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation that arson and looting and the earlier provocation and violence of the anarchist elements are unreservedly and utterly condemned? However, will the Home Secretary's inquiry take evidence from those News of the World and Mail on Sunday journalists who were injured in police baton charges? Will it take evidence from Mr. Ian Katz of The Sunday Correspondent who described the tactics of senior officers in Whitehall as turning a fracas into a full-scale battle through their ill-considered charges?
Will it take evidence from the Secretary of State for the Environment who might explain why, on Monday last week, when we asked for that march to be redirected from Trafalgar square to Hyde Park because we knew there would be upwards of 100,000 people in London, we were told that that was impossible because we had not given seven days' written notice? Finally, will he tell his right hon. Friend sitting next to him—the Prime Minister—that if she and her Back-Benchers want to take demonstrations off the streets of London, they should call a general election and let the people decide on the poll tax"

Mr. Waddington: Here we go again—the same sort of weasel words as we heard at the time of Orgreave and Wapping. That was a condemnation of violence swiftly followed by a backhand way of excusing those who perpetrated the violence.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I unreservedly welcome the message by the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook, (Mr. Hattersley), and the sincerity with which it was given on behalf of a great democratic party. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best message to give the people of Britain would be if all parties in the House would make it abundantly clear that they would eject from their membership any Member who advocated law-breaking or encouraged others to do so?

Mr. Waddington: We have been waiting for a long time for such a condemnation from the Leader of the Opposition, but no condemnation comes. He has in his ranks on the Opposition Benches 30 hon. Members who have been encouraging people to break the law. He should grow up and behave like a responsible citizen.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that the organisers of the march, and I was there to witness it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—did everything possible to ensure that there was a large and peaceful demonstration? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and call for an open public inquiry into all the events of last Saturday? If he does not do that, the question of who caused the violence and the policing tactics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought that the purpose of an inquiry was to try to find the causes of something. Conservative Members appear to have made up their minds already.
I ask the Home Secretary also to pass on to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the basic cause of the large


demonstration on Saturday and all the other demonstrations is the manifestly absurd, unjust and mediaeval tax known as the poll tax and that demonstrations—peaceful demonstrations—will continue. The issue will not go away until the poll tax is removed.

Mr. Waddington: I did not think that we would have to wait all that long for it—not a word of condemnation of the violence came from the hon. Gentleman, yet he must have seen the vicious scenes on television. When he talks about an unjust tax, he must realise that he is encouraging violence of that sort.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The bigger the demonstration the easier it is for violent elements to infiltrate it and the greater the danger that peaceful bystanders and those thinking that they are taking part in a peaceful demonstration will get hurt. Will my right hon. and learned Friend now consider whether we should reintroduce into our law a provision similar to the Riot Act so that people who are caught up in such circumstances and are likely to get hurt will have proper notice that they will be participating in a criminal enterprise unless they depart immediately?

Mr. Waddington: I doubt very much whether attempting to read the Riot Act would have had any effect on the events on Saturday, when a section of the crowd seemed determined to cause trouble and certainly would not have heard a single word of the Riot Act if it had been read to them.

Mr. George Galloway: I was a speaker at the rally in Trafalgar square on Saturday and an eye-witness to the appalling scenes that the House is now discussing. My views on those scenes were widely quoted in yesterday's newspapers. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that and that I need not repeat them today.
The Government would be doing themselves and the country an injustice if they attempted to steamroller the fundamental causes of the rising tide of anger in the country by hiding behind the wholly specious equation of someone peacefully withholding his tax with someone smashing masonry over a policeman's head. I inform the Home Secretary—I do not expect him publicly to acknowledge it, but I hope that the Government are privately taking it on board—that if the Government do not change course on the poll tax, it will be a long hot summer.

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the organisers of the

march were people who intended peacefully to withhold their tax. He knows perfectly well that the organisers of the march have been urging others to break the law, which is a very different matter. The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks do him no credit at all because they could easily be interpreted by people outside the House as an incitement to violence.

Mr. John Bowis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Londoners accept their long history of providing a venue for peaceful demonstration, but that when such demonstrations are manipulated out of control, it is London's police, London's hospitals, London's shops and London's citizens who suffer? Will he ensure that not only the people who were involved in the violence on the streets, but the inciters and godfathers who stand behind them, are brought to book?

Mr. Waddington: I assure my hon. Friend that the police will make every effort to do so.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that, on reflection, the Home Secretary will agree that Saturday's terrible events are best discussed in a spirit of calmness. In that mood and spirit, may I ask him what amounts to almost a technical question? I, at least, had not heard of the application to move the demonstration from Trafalgar square to Hyde park. Will one of the inquiries examine whether such an application was made, and if it was, will one of the inquiries examine why it was refused and whether it was wise to refuse it?

Mr. Waddington: I shall certainly look at that matter. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he asked a very restrained question and that I answered in very temperate language. However, when other hon. Members make remarks that could be interpreted as an incitement to violence, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to remain silent.

Mr. Speaker: We have a further statement. I call the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the hope of conducting the debate in the responsible way that is my habit, I asked the Home Secretary a specific question and I believe that the House is entitled to a specific answer. It concerns the proposed movement of the venue from Trafalgar square to Hyde park. Will that or will that not be the subject of part of the inquiry?

Mr. Waddington: I thought that I had answered that, but if I did not, I am sorry. Obviously, I shall look into the matter. As I understand it, the organisers of the march agreed the venue and the route with the police.

Strangeways Prison

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the serious violence in Manchester prison.
At about 11 am yesterday, some 300 prisoners attending a service in the chapel attacked the staff present and took keys from them, and the staff were then forced to withdraw. The prisoners broke out of the roof of the chapel and gained access to the main prison, where a large number of inmates had been unlocked from cells to be served with their midday meal. These joined the chapel rioters, and violence spread quickly to the remand wing. Staff then had to be withdrawn from all the living areas in the prison, for their own safety. Some 120 prisoners in the hospital, who were taking exercise at the time, were, however, secured and took no part in the disturbance.
Meanwhile, prisoners in the living area began to destroy the roof and internal fittings. Staff were forced back away from the buildings by volleys of slates and other missiles, and fires were lit inside the prison. The emergency services were quickly in attendance and police were deployed outside the prison. No prisoners escaped. During the afternoon about 500 prisoners gave themselves up and during the evening and night more surrendered.
My latest information is that some 119 prisoners have yet to surrender, while 69 prisoners remain in the hospital and other parts of the prison, safe and under control. Prison officers regained control of the remand wings of the prison this morning. Some 1,363 prisoners have been sent to other prisons, and 95 are in police cells, as a result of most remarkable work by the prison service and the police.
There have been widespread but conflicting stories from surrendering prisoners about the violence which took place in the early afternoon and claims that a number of prisoners are dead. It has not been possible to confirm these stories and, to date, no bodies have been discovered, but the possibility that fatalities have occurred cannot be ruled out. The general picture is of prisoners indulging in violence on other prisoners, the full consequences of which remain to be discovered.
Nine of the surrendering prisoners claim to have been forcibly injected with drugs, and eight admit to having taken drugs voluntarily. Twenty-four prisoners are in outside hospitals, one with serious head injuries and one with a punctured lung. None is considered now to be in danger. I say again that those injuries seem to be the result of violence meted out by prisoner on prisoner. Twelve prison officers were injured and had to be taken to hospital. They have all been released.
I pay tribute to the commendable bravery shown by the prison officers, who were faced with a fierce and savage onslaught, and to the courageous leadership of the governor and his senior staff. I also express our gratitude to the police for their swift response and their help later in moving prisoners from the gaol. I thank also the fire service and the ambulance service for their help.
This is clearly a dreadful incident, all the more serious in the light of all that we have been trying to do to reduce the pressures on the prison system and to improve conditions.
The prison population nationally is now more than 2,100 lower than at the same time last year, and total

expenditure on the prison service has risen by 20 per cent. in real terms in the past 12 months. As the House knows, we are engaged in a policy designed to keep out of prison those who do not need to be there, a programme of refurbishment of existing establishments, and a building programme, in which eight of the 28 prisons in the programme have already been completed. By 1992–93, we shall have provided more than 10,000 new prison places and, but for incidents like this, overcroding would have been a thing of the past.
Judge Stephen Tumim, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, wrote in his recent report on Manchester prison published last week:
life at Manchester is a great deal nearer what it should be, both for staff and inmates, than it was some two years ago", and he commended the governor and staff for the improvements that they were achieving. He concluded his report by saying:
There was much more to praise than to decry in an establishment clearly going in the right direction and with an optimistic momentum".
Sadly, the short-term consequences of this incident will be to worsen conditions elsewhere just when real improvements were flowing from the combined effects of our policies on criminal justice and the prison building programme.
By a cruel irony, negotiations have only recently been concluded with Manchester city council for the purchase of land for a major redevelopment of the prison. A new hospital was opened last year and the first 28 cells have been fitted with integral sanitation as part of a rolling programme. The population of the prison has dropped significantly since mid-1988. Last year, the number of prisoners held three to a cell had fallen by over 300 to only 123 out of the total population of over 1,600.
Clearly, there will have to be a thorough inquiry into this extremely serious incident. Because the incident is not yet concluded, I do not believe that the precise nature of the inquiry or who should lead it should be determined now, but 1 will inform the House as soon as I have reached a decision.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first offer our sympathy to the prison officers, police officers and firemen who were injured during the Strangeways riot, and congratulate those public services on the invariable bravery and occasional heroism with which they discharged their duties yesterday?
It is our long-standing belief that the recurring crisis in our prisons is the consequence of overcrowding, which results from too many custodial sentences and too little punishment within the community. As the Government, in their criminal justice White Paper, belatedly accepted that view, I shall do no more than set out that principle as the mutually agreed background to the Strangeways disturbance. My detailed questions concern prison conditions, available manpower and preparedness—about none of which the Home Secretary thought it wise to inform the House in his statement.
Much was made at the weekend, and again today, of the chief inspector of prisons' report, which complimented the staff of Strangeways on their dedication. I am happy to repeat that compliment, but does the Home Secretary acknowledge that the same report notes that the treatment of prisoners
leaves much to be desired
and describes the prison's buildings as "awful"?


Eighty-two of the cells that the Victorians intended for single habitation are each occupied by three prisoners, and 296 single habitation cells are each occupied by two prisoners. Prisoners are confined to their cells for all but 11 hours each week, and are allowed only one shower and one change of clothing a week. On many occasions last year, not even that was possible. The cell blocks have no modern sanitation, and even men living three to a cell are required to slop out. If we treat men like animals, we ought not to be surprised if they behave like animals.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that there were 30 fewer prison officers on duty yesterday than would have been the case had new staffing levels not been imposed on prisons by the Home Office after the "fresh start" policy came into operation? How many officers were on duty yesterday? Does the Home Secretary regard that number, whatever it was, as adequate in the light of warnings of a disturbance that I understand the Home Office received?
Were messages passed to the governor warning that a major demonstration was likely to take place at the weekend? If so, what action was taken? Were demonstrators on the roof earlier last week? If so, did not the Home Office regard that a sign of trouble to come?
Were prisoners due to be taken to court on Tuesday kept in the prison because of the fear of disturbances? If so, why did not the Home Office regard that as an indication of possible future disturbances? Is it not a fact that the Home Office—not the governor or his staff—failed hopelessly in its management of the prison and neglected its duty to prepare for disturbances that it should have anticipated? Its failures are the direct responsibility of the Home Secretary and of his inadequate policies for staffing prisons and for the conditions within them.

Mr. Waddington: I do find it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) addresses those remarks to me without including a word of condemnation of the prisoners who have done immense damage, and thereby set back the work of improving the prison estate, and who indulged in an orgy of violence against their fellow inmates. The right hon. Gentleman might have addressed his mind to those aspects just for one moment.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to congratulate prison officers on their bravery and to echo my own sentiments, but I am not sure that he is entitled to talk about prison overcrowding when the Government of which he was a member did not lift a finger to do anything about it. The right hon. Gentleman is way off the mark when he talks as though our criminal justice White Paper dealt only with new thinking and not with the development of ideas that had been put into practice in previous years.
The range of non-custodial sentences has greatly increased in recent years. As a consequence, we greatly increased also staffing of the probation service, which now has 1,200 more probation officers than in 1979. Our White Paper was the culmination, not the start, of a policy that has resulted in probably the best community service regimes in the world. Incidentally, it has helped to bring about a large reduction in the prison population in the past two years.
What absolute nonsense it is to talk about us addressing ourselves to the criminal justice system just now, when

back in 1982 we put through the House the Criminal Justice Act, which had a dramatic effect on the number of young people given custodial sentences.
I agree that the prison leaves much to be desired. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, much of our prison estate is composed of prisons built in the 19th century. I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues never addressed that problem when they were in office.
There were 10 prison officers on duty that morning in the chapel, and I gather that that is the normal number of officers to be on duty. The right hon. Gentleman made remarks about the regime for prisoners in Strangeways. In recent times, that regime has been greatly improved. In the week ending 17 March, the average weekly hours of activity for inmates in Workers Educational Association courses, and physical education was 22·73 hours for convicted adults, 10·61 hours for remands and 12·35 hours for convicted young offenders. For the equivalent week a year ago, the figures were 12·79, 5·28 and 9·19 hours respectively.
It is nonsense to paint a picture of no progress being made in Strangeways. It is because progress has been made that Judge Tumim was able to make his remarks in his recent report.
I know of no warning given to the prison staff of trouble. Two prisoners went up on the roof during last week, but they were not accompanied or encouraged by any of the other inmates, and no doubt the judgment made was that it was a minor demonstration by two prisoners. That was the end of it.

Mr. Robert Litherland: But surely the Home Secretary and his predecessors must have been made aware by the Prison Officers Association that Strangeways prison was a powder keg that could explode at any time. After this bitter and tragic experience, does he now agree that the association has been proved right and that the Home Office is now accused of criminal negligence? The Government's policy on prisons, like Strangeways, is now in ruins.

Mr. Waddington: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that they simply to not fit the facts. They do not fit with the improvements in the regime at Strangeways during recent times. If the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to the allocation of staffing, I should say that there has been no difficulty in posting sufficient staff to Manchester. All the framework agreement staff required for a reduction in prison officers' hours for the beginning of this month have already been posted to Manchester. Further staff are due to be posted in the next 12 months.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we really must do something about such Victorian prisons? Does he not feel that it is inhuman to keep three prisoners cooped up in a cell all day? Although I admit that the Government are doing a great deal, we must give an even higher priority to getting rid of those old prisons. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very sad that such a tragic situation has arisen under a governor who has done so much in his three years of office?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that there is any truth in the press reports that the scenes of


violence we saw on Saturday, which must have been seen on the television screens in that prison, helped to spark off some of the violence there?

Mr. Waddington: I do not honestly know the answer to the last question, but it is certainly true that those who indulge in irresponsible violence may well encourage others to do so, particularly if what they do appears on television. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government have embarked on the largest prison building programme this century. Of a total of 28 prisons in the programme, eight are already open, 14 are at various stages of design and construction, and it is planned for building to commence on another two between 1991 and 1993. That leaves a balance of four prisons, the location and commencement date for construction of which has yet to be decided.
The sadness of it all is that last autumn we were able to announce some diversion of resources from new prison building to refurbishment. I attach the greatest importance to a programme to get rid of slopping out as soon as possible, but when such an event as this takes place, it makes it much more difficult to achieve that to which we have bent all our efforts.
It is an absolute tragedy that this should have occurred now, because we were getting rid of overcrowding, as a result of a combination of fewer people being sent to prison and more prisons being built. At the same time, we were embarked on a big programme of refurbishment. We shall now have to do some new thinking, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we still attach a great deal of importance to improving this country's prison estate.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How long does the Home Secretary expect the prison to be out of action, or largely out of action? What extra help is being given to the prisons to which prisoners from Strangeways have been evacuated? What is happening to those prisoners who were mentally ill and inappropriately accommodated at Strangeways? What additional help is going to the hospitals now trying to cope with those who were injured in the violence? When does the Home Secretary expect to make a further statement about the reports of deaths during this tragic and violent weekend?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously, I shall have to sum up the position when events develop. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to say more than that now. I said in my statement that the police and prison officers had worked valiantly overnight to move a large number of prisoners to different establishments up and down the country. I was amazed to see the scale of the task which they had set themselves and the amazing way in which they had achieved the movement of such a large number of people.
I cannot be expected to say now exactly where all the people are, whether they should remain there or whether they should be moved to other establishments once the emergency has been sorted out. The fairest thing I can suggest is for the right hon. Gentleman to write to me and, if particular cases worry him, I shall ensure that he is kept informed about them as much as possible.

Mr. David Sumberg: As my constituency is only two miles up the road from Strangeways, may I say how appalled my constituents will be that, in this delicate and dangerous situation, the shadow Home Secretary

should seek to make a political issue of the matter? I join my right hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the courage of the police and prison officers who have ensured that the matter has been kept entirely within the prison and not a single prisoner has escaped.

Mr. Waddigton: I am grateful to my hon. friend for his remarks. He is right to congratulate both the prison officers and the police on the work that they have done.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Home Secretary accept that the answer which he gave his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, suggesting that new thinking would be necessary, is right and welcome? Does he also accept that the brutalising vengengefulness displayed this weekend, and the suicidal despair in other prisons, shows that this event is part of a pattern of behaviour in Victorian prisons in inner cities, and that we simply must accelerate the penal reform to which he and his colleagues have set their minds? Does he also accept that he must undertake to move that reform into a higher gear?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was accusing us, or could accuse us, of having done nothing. We inherited a dilapidated prison estate on which not a penny had been spent for many years, and we embarked on this massive prison-building programme. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of our criminal justice reforms. I hope that a Criminal Justice Bill may be in the programme for the next Session, but that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although my constituents have considerable sympathy for the working conditions of prison officers and for remand prisoners who may be held for lengthy periods while unconvicted, they have scant sympathy for convicted prisoners who are, by and large, in prison because of their own actions? Bearing in mind the improvements that we have made in the prison in recent years, will my right hon. and learned friend assure us that prisoners who are identified as having taken part in the riot will be properly punished and disciplined; and will he ensure that sympathy for the conditions will not outweigh proper condemnation of the prisoner's actions?

Mr. Waddington: I think it is important to condemn their action. That is why I took up this matter with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). This is not a case of prisoners going on the rampage and destroying their own property; it is a case of prisoners going on the rampage and attacking fellow prisoners. The full history of this matter has yet to be disclosed, but clearly, serious offences have been committed. I agree with my hon. Friend that they must all be investigated and that the guilty people must be brought to justice.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: While one recognises all the difficulties of yesterday, will the Home Secretary recognise the anguish of many of the families of people who were in the prison? A 17-year-old constituent of mine was in the prison, and his parents were unable to obtain any information about him. Can the Minister assure the House that all the families of people who have been moved will know where they have been moved to, and that every


effort will be made to ensure that families are put out of their anguish, especially in view of the concern caused by the unconfirmed rumours of deaths in the prison?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right, in the sense that we do not want people to be unnecessarily anxious. We shall give as much information as we can as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend will no doubt appreciate Conservative Members' condemnation of the monstrous behaviour of the prisoners. Does he agree that one of the major problems in any prison is the segregation of sexual offenders from those who want to assault them and beat them up? Can he confirm this morning's press reports that many of the victims of the assault were sexual offenders who were under protection under rule 43?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot confirm that now.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: While recognising the great difficulties that there must have been arranging transfers to other prisons, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that a prison such as Armley in Leeds, which is already overcrowded and in which there have been many suicides in recent years, is equipped to receive the reported 100 prisoners who have been transferred there? Has he arranged for more prison officers to cope with the problem?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that it has been quite difficult to keep up with events over the past 24 hours. I do not have an up-to-date list of where the prisoners who have been moved have gone. As I told the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we shall give as much information as we can as soon as possible, and we shall try to accommodate prisoners where there is room for them and make the best possible arrangements in the difficult circumstances that have arisen.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend said in his opening remarks that this incident would worsen conditions elsewhere. We have an exceptionally well run prison in Lancaster with high morale. When I rang it this morning, I was told that it has had no prisoners sent from Strangeways. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do his best to ensure that this excellent prison is not disrupted and mayhem created by the transfer of prisoners from Strangeways, who would undo the work of decades?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously I do not want to see the work of any prison disrupted as a result of this, but accommodation has to be found for these prisoners. If my hon. Friend will keep in touch with me, I shall do my best to keep her up to date. I do not know how many prisoners, if any, have gone to Lancaster.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I have to say to the House that we have a very heavy day ahead of us and as the Home Secretary has said, a further report will be made on this matter. I will allow three more questions from each side and then I am afraid we must move on.

Mr. Ken Eastham: May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the main theme that seems to be coming through—that of overcrowding? He will know that, from time to time, we write to his Department about prisoners on remand who are often not guilty but awaiting trial. Some of them wait for weeks and sometimes months, and that is one of the reasons for the grave overcrowding. Will the Home Secretary do all in his power to bring about a speedier trials procedure?
We understand that millions of pounds' worth of damage has been caused to buildings, and that most of the prison will be out of commission for many months. The prison is located in the central area of Manchester, which is highly congested. Is it not time to reconsider relocating Strangeways away from that locality and getting rid once and for all of this Victorian pigsty?

Mr. Waddington: I have heard of the hon. Gentleman's last suggestion, but his language is rather exaggerated. One has only to read Judge Tumim's report to see the marvellous work carried out by the governor and staff, which over years has brought about significant improvements in Strangeways. I was a frequent visitor to Strangeways when I practised in Manchester, but I have not been there in the last few months.
The hon. Gentleman asked about remands in custody. He should bear in mind that in recent years there has rightly been a very big fall in the number of remands in custody. Advances such as bail information schemes have contributed to that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General reminds me that there is now a time limit in Manchester, which results in people not having to wait as long as they used to for an appearance in court. There is a time limit of 112 days between committal and trial.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, from the moment our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) became Prime Minister, we have had a most massive building programme for prisons? It was started by Lord Whitelaw and continued by successive Home Secretaries. [Interruption.] Well, at least the Prime Minister stayed through both statements, which is more than can be said of the Leader of the Opposition. Our Government have nothing to answer for in terms of prison building and improvements, and we take no lessons from the Opposition.
I congratulate the police service in Rochdale and Oldham on dispatching officers immediately. I was watching a police parade there at the time. The special constabulary covered for the officers who left. That was a good effort. I congratulate all the police officers, the prison officers and the members of the ambulance and fire services for their efforts.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations and I shall, of course, pass them on, together with those that have come from all parts of the House. Obviously he is right when he says that we have no lessons to learn from the Opposition about the state of our prisons.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: May I also express my concern about the possible implications of the situation at Strangeways for other prisons, such as Wakefield prison in my constituency, which has had major


staffing difficulties since the introduction of the "fresh start" arrangement? Will the Home Secretary seek assurances as soon as possible that prisoners have not been transferred from Strangeways to other overcrowded establishments, and that prison officers from establishments such as that at Wakefield, which have staffing difficulties, have not been transferred to Strangeways?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a day or two until we can see exactly how people have been distributed. I am sure that, if he rings my office, we will keep him in touch with events and give him as much information as we can.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, when the inquiry that he has announced takes place, there will be a thorough investigation into the role of hard drugs in this disgraceful incident? Is it not an indictment of the present system that hard drugs are available? Will he undertake to introduce any measures to curb the availability of such drugs?

Mr. Waddington: I must make one thing absolutely plain to my hon. Friend. It is by no means clear that any of the drugs that were injected got into the prison illicitly. The dispensary was broken into, and we will of course have to investigate whether all the drugs used came from there. That may well be the case.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Home Secretary consider extending his inquiry into the prision riots to Durham gaol, where, over the past two years, four prisoners have committed suicide and I believe that one is the subject of a murder charge?

Mr. Waddington: Her Majesty's inspector of prisons is presently carrying out an inquiry into suicides in prison. This is an important matter, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make any submissions to me I shall see that they are passed to Judge Tumim.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all those who wish to ask questions, but I shall certainly bear them in mind when we return to this matter. I call Sir Geoffrey Howe—

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We have a Standing Order No. 20 application.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the critical situation at Strangeways prison, Manchester.
For a long time, concern has been expressed by prison officers, Members of Parliament and many other interested groups that unless the conditions of overcrowding, undermanning, bad sanitation and boredom were not drastically dealt with, the prison could face a crisis which the prison officers could not contain. Time and again devoted officers have drawn attention to the matter by appealing to the Home Office to face the reality and take a realistic view of the immense pressures and stress endured at Strangeways prison.
Against their better judgment, prison officers took industrial action by refusing to allow further prisoners to enter Strangeways. That was an attempt to highlight the severe problems of overcrowding at that gaol. The prison has always had the full support and good will of those officers, who have been badly let down by the Home Office. One senior officer once told me that one day, possibly at a weekend when the prison is most vulnerable, the prisoners would come through the walls and the prison would be lost. Yesterday in the area of Strangeways prison, I saw that sad prediction becoming a reality. The prison was lost, perhaps for ever.
For the sake of every other outmoded and outdated prison in this country, let us learn from the serious events at Strangeways and recognise that, unless the elements of riot are eradicated, we may again see distressing scenes like those that we saw in Manchester yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the riot at Her Majesty's prison, Strangeways.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member said about this matter. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether I should give it precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. In this case I regret that the matter that he has raised does not fall within the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Now I will take points of order.

Points of Order

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I invite you to recall questions that were asked earlier this afternoon on overseas development. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked about Vietnam. In response, the Minister for Overseas Development simply referred my hon. Friend to her reply to me at the last Question Time on overseas development. Do you not agree that that was a very unsatisfactory way to answer an oral question, especially since no notice was given to my hon. Friend? Will you accept it from me that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of both replies, I shall be raising the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. Perhaps he will do as he suggests.

Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the series of earth tremors in Stoke-on-Trent, including the one today, which I understand measured between 4 and 5 on the Richter scale, will you please arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House and tell us about his proposals for the monitoring of earth tremors and about the equipment that can be made available to ensure that preventive measures are taken?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady raises a matter of which, I am afraid, I have no knowledge. However, I am sure what she has said about it will have been heard by those who are responsible for making statements.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 5486/87, 5803/88, 4023/90 and 4024/90 on plant health be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin this very important debate, I say again to the House that, because of the late start and the fact that a great number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in it, I shall place a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. However, I hope that that limit will be borne in mind by those who are called to speak before then. There is great pressure to participate in the debate.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is, in my opinion, one of the most significant measures to be brought forward by a Government in the last 20 years. It is a complex and sensitive Bill that deals with matters that are fundamental to the well-being of our society. It proposes a new and detailed system of statutory regulation of certain types of infertility treatment. If the House agrees with the view taken in another place, that regulation would extend to research involving human embryos
On that matter, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House proposes to give the House an opportunity to vote later this month on the Floor of the House on an issue which both the Government party and the other main parties in the House regard as a matter of individual conscience. Such matters will be raised several times during the debate on the Bill.
We all know that the subject matter of the Bill raises important legal and social issues. It also raises important scientific and medical issues. At the heart of the Bill, however, there are also important ethical questions. The House is divided as to the ethics, but in the end, it will have to make an ethical judgment on behalf of the community at large.
As the Bill is so unlike other measures that Governments usually introduce, I am sure that our debates on it will differ from our normal debates, and will cut across the ordinary party political lines. We are all aware of the fact that people outside Parliament are, more than is usually the case, looking to the House to debate the measure calmly. I am sure that the quality of the debate on these highly sensitive and controversial matters will live up to the strong feelings of the many people who regard these matters as of the deepest significance.
Those who have read the debates in another place will, I am sure, agree with me that they were of a high quality. I share in the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he steered the debates through another place. Changes were made during those debates, which I shall describe during my speech.
The Bill is the end product of a long period of public debate and reflection. Some people have argued that the process has been over-long. I do not share that view. We can all see, with hindsight, that the Bill has benefited from


the time that has elapsed. That can be seen from the fact that, at each stage of the discussion process, more common ground has opened up.
There are some exceptions, particularly on the subject of research involving the human embryo. Because of its very nature, there will never be a consensus on that subject, or a solution that is acceptable to all shades of opinion. There can be no doubt, however, that there is genuine agreement about the need for statutory regulation in this highly sensitive and fast developing area of science and medicine. Many of the Bill's provisions now command, I am confident, a broad measure of public support.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of the origins of the Bill and describe its main principles. The birth in Oldham in 1978 of the world's first baby born as a result of in vitro fertilisation, Louise Brown, ushered in a whole new era in the treatment of infertile couples. However, that birth has brought in its wake a series of complex legal and ethical issues which, it became apparent, would require to be addressed in legislation. It is not unknown for Governments of any complexion to shrink away from tackling difficult legislative problems, but this Government felt that it was a responsibility that we could not shirk.
In 1982, we set up a committee of inquiry, chaired by Mrs. Warnock, now Baroness Warnock, the distinguished philosopher, to study all the implications that the advent of the test-tube baby technique brought in its train, including that of research involving human embryos. As a Minister, I was answerable to the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) who set up the inquiry.
I should remind the House that, when the Government decided to ask Lady Warnock to head the committee, there was no wide public controversy or even wide public knowledge of the issues. Enoch Powell had not introduced his Bill and the newspapers had not drawn attention to the issues. The considered view of Ministers in this Government was that serious problems were arising that Parliament and the Government would have to address. We addressed the issues responsibly by asking Lady Warnock and her committee to advise. I believe that we have acted responsibly ever since.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Lady Warnock's committee. It was not given an easy remit. It was asked to address the subject at large. The fact that the Bill reflects in many of its provisions the thinking of that inquiry is a commendation of its foresight and of the firmness with which it tackled its task.
The committee reported in 1984. There immediately followed an extensive round of public consultation. That brought in a number of responses—indeed, a scale of responses that was quite out of the ordinary for the kind of public consultation exercises that accompany many measures before they are brought before the House. We received views not just from organisations and lobbies and the leading medical scientific, legal and religious bodies, but also from many individual members of the public who feel deeply. on one side or the other, about the issues.
We quickly introduced the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. That quickly and effectively quelled the prospect of the development of commercial surrogacy agencies in this country. There was unanimous agreement on that; the Bill was brought before the House and passed quickly. In the same year, 1985, I well remember, as one who took part in the debates, Enoch Powell's introduction of the

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which sought to prohibit research involving human embryos. The Bill did not complete all its stages, but it focused public attention on this highly important and sensitive matter. In the next week or two, the House will finally return to the decisive debate on the issue and come to a decision one way or the other.
The Government issued a consultation document in 1986, the responses to which formed the basis for the White Paper entitled "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation" which we published in November 1987. The White Paper was debated in this House and, shortly thereafter, in another place. The Bill that we introduced in another place last November closely follows the policy set out in the White Paper, except as regards a small number of points of detail.
I shall soon turn to a description of the main provisions of the Bill and will refer to the changes made to it during the debates in another place. First, however, I ought to make clear what will be the role throughout our debates of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will be taking part in the Standing Committee debates, and also my role and that of other Ministers who may be called upon to speak from the Dispatch Box during the proceedings on the Bill.
For the most part, the Bill is presented to the House on the same basis as any other Government measure. Ministers will speak for the Government in their capacity as Ministers on the majority of issues and in the majority of debates. But I am conscious that in the embryo research debate and on some other matters that we know may arise in Committee, the normal rules of party discipline will not apply. The Government will certainly allow a free vote on these matters to all those who normally take our Whip and to members of the Government.
I have never made any secret of the fact that I am an enthusiastic supporter of properly regulated embryo research and, by coincidence, so is my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, but that does not mean that that is a Government position on the matter. When I speak on the merits of the case, I shall make it quite clear that I am not speaking with the authority of the Government behind me. Usually, outside the House, I talk about taking off my hat as Secretary of State for Health and putting on my hat as the Member for Parliament for Rushcliffe. That will be the case for all members of the Government and of my party. On some of the great issues of conscience, I have no doubt that members of the Government and the Conservative party will be found in both Division Lobbies, just as I confidently expect that the views of members of other major parties in the House will be divided.
In the debates on matters of conscience, our approach will be the same as that of Ministers who dealt with such issues in the past. We shall stress that the Government do not take a collective position. Any opinions on the merits of the case will be, strictly speaking, our own. However, as Ministers, regardless of our personal views, our role is to serve the House to the best of our abilities by providing factual information in as neutral and objective a way as possible, so that the full implications of proposals are set out, and by explaining the implications of particular amendments—in both cases using the range of expertise available to Government.
The other principal duty of Government is to ensure that the House produces legislation which has been so


drafted that, whatever the decision of the House one way or the other on the great issues, the result is practicable and effective to administer and enforce, and can be applied by the courts.
Before turning to consider the Bill in detail, I should remind the House of one other background to the Bill—the considerable unhappiness and stress which childlessness can cause individual couples. One of the benefits that I hope will flow from the public attention given to those issues in recent years is a greater understanding and sympathy for their plight.
The numbers are far from insignificant. About one in 10 couples are thought to be infertile, and a greater number are estimated to seek specialist help at some stage in their desire to have a family. More than for most groups, it is sometimes hard for childless couples to draw public attention to their problems. Those of us who are lucky enough to have had children naturally should not forget the considerable stress and strain posed for childless couples. Obviously, it is a perfectly legitimate medical and scientific activity to enable them to satisfy the wholly worthy objective of having families of their own.
As far as I am aware, the Bill is the first comprehensive measure dealing with all the issues addressed by the Warnock committee concerning the legal, social and ethical implications of new methods of assisted reproduction attempted anywhere in the world. Some countries have enacted legislation dealing with some of the issues—for example, Spain and the state of Victoria in Australia. Others, such as Canada and West Germany, are actively considering legislation. In West Germany, legislation has already reached the Bundesrat.
I should like to refer hon. Members to the recently published research project funded by my Department. It was prepared by Dr. Jennifer Gunning, who, until last summer, was secretary to the interim licensing authority. As a result of her field visits and desk research, she has produced an up-to-date account of the legal framework of issues such as in vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination by donor embryo research, abortion and research involving the use of foetal tissue covering a broad range of north American and European countries, as well as Australia. Although it is not always possible to deduce the exact implications of a particular law, the House will find it a useful document to add to scientific, medical and ethical literature produced on the subject.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: What will be the effect if the Bill fails to receive a Second Reading? Am I right in believing that embryo research will continue as at present, or would the end of the Bill mean the end of that research?

Mr. Clarke: If the Bill fails to get a Second Reading, the law will remain as it is. As I hope most people in the House will agree, whatever our personal opinions on the merits or otherwise of research into the human embryo, the present law is totally unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, we shall be divided on the contents of the legislation, but I believe that a broad range of opinion, including those in the medical and scientific community who carry out such research, accepts the need for legislation so that everyone knows exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed under British law.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Precisely what under present law is unsatisfactory in relation to embryo research? Many of us could guess what it is, but we should like to hear from the Secretary of State what the Department considers to be unsatisfactory.

Mr. Clarke: It will be left totally to the individual judgment of each researcher to decide at what stage of the development of the embryo they should be debarred from carrying out research. The Warnock committee concluded that research should be permitted up to 14 days, the reasons for which it set out. As there is no express legal prohibition of research, as things stand, it will be open to each researcher to make his or her personal judgment, first, about the stage of development at which he should cease the research and, secondly, about the purpose of that research.
Those carrying out the research at present are quite content with the 14-day limit, as that is a late enough stage at which plainly an individual person would emerge. Whatever views one has on the status of a human embryo, it should not be treated as just another piece of human tissue to be researched upon purely in the spirit of open scientific inquiry.
All responsible people feel that Parliament has a duty to set out precise limits and to establish a licensing authority, if it is the decision of both Houses of Parliament that research should be permitted.
The most controversial aspect of the Bill sets out the statutory framework of control for the treatment of infertility and the storage of gametes and embryos. I do not wish to anticipate debate, but I believe that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members would like there to be some statutory control.
The new statutory body, an independent body to be called the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, covers four main treatments to be licensed—artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilisation and egg and embryo donation. If the House agrees with the decision reached in another place, the authority will also license research involving human embryos.
When the Bill was introduced in another place, it contained a very significant drafting innovation. Clause 11 contained alternative provisions, as the Government had promised in the 1987 White Paper, one permitting such research and the other prohibiting it. The other House was invited to reject one or the other. In the event, the proposition permitting research was carried, and an amendment moved by Lord Jakobovits, with support from the Duke of Norfolk and the Bishops of London and Southwark, which sought to restrict such research to so-called spare embryos as a result of infertility treatment, was not accepted.
The Bill we are now debating contains, in clause 11 and related parts of schedule 2, provisions which, if enacted in their present form, would permit such research in specified circumstances. The Bill has returned to the House in the way in which the Lords preferred it, with authority for research contained in clause 11.
The Government are anxious to give the House precisely the same choice as was presented in another place. We are therefore arranging for amendments to be drafted by parliamentary counsel which would have the effect of deleting research from the functions of the new authority. The amendments will be tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President in the interests of


securing orderly debate. He will table them in his capacity as Leader of the House to offer hon. Members the same clear choice as noble Members in the other place had and not as an expression of his opinion or of Government policy. I do not know how he will exercise his vote, but he is best placed to put before the House the choice that was rightly put before Members in the other place.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider establishing a Special Standing Committee to consider these complex issues? People on both sides of the argument who are concerned about the issue should have the benefit of the detailed examination that that procedure provides. Furthermore, will he consider a free vote on provisions relating to regulations? Those provisions could become open-ended, because they could extend research beyond the point at which prohibition currently stands.

Mr. Clarke: I understand my hon. Friend's first suggestion. I recall that a Special Standing Committee was established to consider the Mental Health Act 1983. It was useful in helping members of the Committee to form views on issues that cut across party political lines and covered detailed ethical and other judgments. The Bill is before the House after one of the longest periods of consultation and discussion that I can recall. When we asked the Warnock committee to consider the subject in 1982, neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield nor anyone else believed that it would be 1990 before a Bill was being given its Second Reading.
Given all the private Members' Bills that have been before the House, hon. Members have had quite a few opportunities to debate the subject. It will be the general will of the House —this can be argued on the timetable motion—that key decisions should be taken on the Floor of the House before the Bill is considered by a Standing Committee.
In Committee, Ministers will seek to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that they will not take to themselves open-ended, wide regulation-making powers. We shall be specific about the circumstances in which we contemplate such powers being used.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about key issues being discussed on the Floor of the House. Is he aware of the deep feeling in the country that the Department and the Secretary of State should be responsible for this complex issue? They should be answerable to hon. Members on these vital matters.

Mr. Clarke: I shall deal with the nature of the authority, but I think that I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. It has been argued that, rather than having a completely independent authority, Ministers should be responsible for these matters. We decided against that, because it would place Ministers and the House in a permanently difficult position if, as a semi-political issue, it was said that Ministers should take this or that view on medical or scientific matters. The Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House, and having consulted ministerial colleagues, will appoint members of the authority. The code of practice of the authority will have to be submitted to the Secretary of

State and laid before the House, but some independence, in medical and scientific matters is in the interests of Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the proposals in the Bill are in conflict with two resolutions that were carried last year by the European Parliament?

Mr. Clarke: The proposals in the Bill will contain two options, and it will be for the House to decide how much weight to give the proposals of the European Parliament. I am aware of the reports from the European Commission, but they reach no clear or specific views. It is unwise for the European Parliament to reach conclusions intended to determine the policies of all member states. I am an extremely keen European, but I cannot conceive of a common European policy on this subject. The day that the states of Denmark, Spain, Italy and Britain reach a common view on abortion, embryo research and so on will be a considerable surprise to me and to many others.
Before continuing with the issue of embryo research, may I draw attention to one significant change made to the Bill in the other place that would significantly affect the scope of licensing arrangements for embryo research? On Report in the other place, the Government tabled amendments, principally to clause 1, to ensure that the licensing provisions of the Bill cover research, storage and treatment not only from the point where a two-cell zygote appears for the first time—a useful point of reference that can be observed clearly—but the period of up to 30 hours when the human egg is in the process of fertilisation after the mixing of sperm and eggs. That amendment commanded general support in the other place and is useful clarification of the scope of the new authority. I hope that the House will agree that it satisfactorily resolves an issue that has concerned many members of the public since the Bill was first presented.
I should draw attention to the clear and tight restrictions that will confine the use of embryos. Clause 3 makes it clear that no person shall bring about the creation of an embryo or use an embryo, except in pursuance of a treatment, storage or research licence issued by the new authority. I am confident that all hon. Members would like to prohibit certain activities, which include cloning or the creation of hybrids or other science fiction possibilities. There can be little doubt that infringing such prohibitions by attempting to create hybrids should attract the severe penalties provided in the Bill.
The arguments of both sides on embryo research will be most properly deployed if we accept the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for a day's debate on the Floor of the House in the next few weeks.
The principal consideration of those who oppose embryo research is that any embryo, even the large percentage lost through natural processes during a woman's menstrual cycle, is a potential human being with the prospect of life. Any idea of research into an embryo at the early stages of life is repugnant to many of our constituents and to many hon. Members. They believe that the law should prohibit those activities because they affect the rights of a third party—the human embryo—whose existence should override other lesser rights. I do not share those views, but I look forward to listening to them with respect and attention when they are deployed. The


arguments in favour of research are becoming well known to most hon. Members. There is broad consensus among medical and scientific opinion that such research should be permitted and that, if Parliament prohibits it, scientists will either turn to other avenues of study or go to countries where early research is allowed.
There are five main purposes for which it is argued that research involving human embryos is medically essential and ethically justified: first, to promote advances in the treatment of infertility; secondly, to increase knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; thirdly, to increase knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; fourthly, to develop more effective techniques of contraception; and, fifthly, to develop methods of detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Research in this country into pre-implantation diagnosis is well advanced, and I understand that the first pregnancies involving that method may soon come to term. This technique could take embryo research beyond the treatment of infertility and into the prevention of inherited genetic diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.
I suppose that on Second Reading I should do no more than set out as part of the framework the arguments on both sides which will be debated on the Floor of the House within the generous time scale proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure that, when we make our decision, hon. Members will wish to consider all those arguments, both for and against, in considerably more detail, not just on their medical and scientific merits but on ethical grounds. It is important that each side respects the strongly held views of the other side. Neither can claim to have exclusive moral virtue on its side. Both profoundly believe that their judgment is ethically correct and will argue and vote with a clear conscience for the best solution and the legal framework that they think is best for our society.

Mr. David Alton: On the subject of laying the scientific facts objectively before the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that no cures for any inherited genetic diseases have been found as a result of any experimentation? Does he accept that leading geneticists, such as Professor Hymie Gordon and Professor Ron Taylor, who holds the chair in obstetrics and gynaecology at St Thomas's hospital, have all confirmed that other primates on which this research can be conducted are available—not human beings?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that those who are carrying out the research are all well motivated and responsible scientists who are doing that work only because they believe that they can alleviate human suffering and can discover much more about the nature of genetically inherited disease and therefore try to avoid it.
The hon. Gentleman's second point is a controversial one which, no doubt, will be raised in argument on the Floor of the House. There is no scientific agreement on this point. A broad body of scientific opinion is sure that experiments with human embryos are required. That is obviously a matter of judgment and of fact upon which scientific opinion is divided and about which we shall hear much more.
In the cause of our concern about research into embryology, we must not overlook the other important parts of the Bill. Under clause 8, the authority will have the important function of advising Ministers about new developments with infertility and embryology. Since the publication of the Warnock report, there have already been major advances in what is possible. I am sure that future Secretaries of State will take full opportunity of seeking the authority's advice on such matters. The authority will oversee a detailed scheme of licensing and a large portion of the Bill is given over to spelling this out in considerable detail.
There are provisions in clause 11 to 22 for the granting of licences by licence committees of the authority; for varying, suspending and revoking licences; and for appeals to be made to the full authority against decisions made by licence committees. The authority may also issue directions on matters such as the information to be recorded by licensed treatment centres where import or export of embryos or gametes is involved.
Clause 25 and 26 require the authority to produce a code of practice for the guidance of those seeking and holding licences. That code of practice will need to be agreed by Ministers and, once agreed, Ministers will place it before Parliament. Drawing up that code of practice will be one of the most important tasks for the authority in its initial phase. I envisage that it will cover matters such as the counselling of patients and donors, the confidentiality of records and the collection of data.
Clause 25 contains another important new provision, which was added to the Bill on Report in another place, on the welfare of children who might be born as a result of the treatments to be licensed by the Bill and any existing children. This arises from the question whether single women, for example, should be allowed to have infertility treatment. The consultant considering licensed treatment is required to take account of these welfare issues in deciding whether licensed treatment is suitable. The code of practice must offer him guidance in taking this decision. The addition of this requirement was greeted enthusiastically on all sides in another place, and I am sure that this improvement will significantly add to the legislation's effectiveness.
Schedule 1 deals in detail with the composition, powers and functions of the authority. It makes it clear that its chairman and deputy chairman must be lay people, in the sense of being neither doctors nor embryologists, nor should they be, or have been, directly involved in commissioning or conducting embryo research. Of the remaining membership, the majority, but no more than two thirds, should also be lay people. Together with other ministerial colleagues, I shall devote a great deal of attention to securing a careful balance in the membership of the new authority, which will have a United Kingdom remit.
The authority will have an important job of public service to carry out. Our objective is that, when the legislation is enacted, it should assume its full powers as soon as practicable, and we are working towards a target date of summer 1991. I hope that the new authority will begin to meet as soon as Royal Assent is given, as it will have much preparatory work to do. In the meantime, I very much hope that the interim licensing authority, sponsored by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, can continue the work that it began at our request in 1985.


That interim body, as it is now called, has shown that an effective system of licensing embryo research and IVF can be maintained. Its members have found themselves facing a longer task than I am sure they first expected and their work load has grown. I pay tribute to their energy and determination in holding the fort and upholding standards until the time was right for the Government to introduce their own measure to create a statutory licensing system.
Clauses 27 to 29 deal with the status of children born as a result of treatments to be licensed by the Bill and carry forward the work which has already begun in the Family Law Reform Act 1987, which provides that an AID child born to a married woman is to be treated as the child of her husband. As a result of an amendment on Third Reading in another place, in the case of so-called social fathers—I know of no better description for the male partner where an unmarried couple are living together—of children born as a result of donation, where an unmarried couple are treated together, the man is to be treated as the father of the child.
Given the commitment of the House to the family, it is right that, where treatment is given to unmarried couples after consideration of the welfare of the children which I have described, social fathers should be required to undertake full responsibilities, especially that of maintaining the child to whose birth they were party.
Time does not allow me to deal with the Bill's many other provisions, which obviously will be carefully considered in Standing Committee, quite apart from the major issues that are to be considered on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to put it on record that there has been no complaint whatever about the licensing authority's interim work?

Mr. Clarke: As far as I am aware, that is a fact. The authority took on an extremely difficult task in this highly sensitive and controversial matter. No one has complained about the way in which it has carried out its responsibilities, given the position in which it was placed.
I remind the House why the Government consider it right—indeed essential—to introduce the Bill. At present, there is no statutory regulation of the treatments to be licensed under the Bill and no statutory regulation, even if Parliament decides that it should continue, of research involving human embryos. Whatever reservations or opposition some people may feel both about the treatments or, more usually, the research, there seems to be universal support for the need to provide a clear and comprehensive system of statutory control. After several unsuccessful private Members' measures, it is our duty to decide what the framework of law should be.
It is worth perhaps pausing to reflect on the size of the step that is being taken in relation to statutory regulation of medical treatment. There are only a few other examples of such control, including abortion, female circumcision and, following the legislation which we enacted last year, human organ donation. In none of those examples, however, is the treatment regulated. In that sense, what the Bill seeks to do is very much a first.
Few people would dispute the idea that it is normally wise to leave doctors entirely free to carry out their clinical tasks to the best of their ability without feeling the need

always to look over their shoulder to see whether they are infringing some regulation or statutory provision. It is therefore a sign of the particular seriousness of the issues which arise from these new techniques that we have taken this unprecedented step.
The other main reason for introducing the Bill is the lack of any adequate statutory framework to cover the status and legal position of children born as a result of treatments licensed under the Bill. Whatever our views about the treatments, I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is wrong that there should be uncertainty about the position of children born as a result of them.
Everyone, of almost every opinion, believes that we need a Bill. The Second Reading of this Bill will pave the way for the detailed consideration of these matters and will enable the House to reach the decisions that must now be taken one way or the other so that everybody knows where we stand as a society.
The Government have already made it clear that we intend to help to secure that aim by proposing splitting and timetable motions for the orderly debate of any amendments that may be tabled. These are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council, who will be speaking to the procedure motions later this evening. My earnest wish, which I believe is shared by all hon. Members, is that the House will take full advantage of the opportunity to reflect calmly and deeply on these important matters and come to a clear and sustainable conclusion one way or the other in the end. That is what is expected of us by those outside the House, and it is our duty to live up to that expectation.

Ms. Jo Richardson: The Secretary of State said at the beginning of his speech that the Bill had taken some time to reach the House of Commons; he was right. Ever since the Warnock report, the first consultation paper and the White Paper, a great deal of pressure has been mounted, not only by those who want to prohibit research but by those of us who want research to be continued in a controlled, regulated and monitored way. I pay tribute to the work of Baroness Warnock, which has been most valuable and which has been the subject of great acclaim in this House and in the House of Lords. We owe Baroness Warnock and her committee a debt.
The long waiting period has, I believe, led us to a greater understanding of the issue —that is certainly true in my case—but it has been an anxious time for scientists and clinicians and especially for infertile couples who have had to wait to know their fate. I am sure that other hon. Members will have received a large number of letters from infertile couples or those anxious that their child may have a chance of excaping some hereditary abnormality, saying that they may at least stand a chance of having a healthy, happy baby.
We have received an enormous amount of material, too, from interest groups on both sides of the argument. I do not think that I can recall ever having seen such mountains of paper. I pay tribute to those bodies for sending us the material, which has been extremely useful. We have received material from distinguised scientists, from doctors and from prestigious organisations such as the royal colleges and the Royal Society. Theologians on


both sides of the argument have also written to us. We should all put on record our thanks for all the help that we have had in trying to understand this complex issues.
Their Lordships have now completed their consideration of the Bill and many wise words have been said in the other place over the past four months. The Bill first reached the House of Lords in December and emerged only a couple of weeks ago, on 21 March. I am much heartened that their Lordships should have decided so positively—in a vote of almost three to one—in favour of continued research, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will have noted that response.
At last, then, the Bill has reached us. From the flavour of his speech, I judge that the Secretary of State shares my hope that we shall conduct our debate in the same measured way as their Lordships did, even though to many the issue is emotive. My position is clear: I hope that we shall vote decisively to allow research to continue under the strict rules of the new statutory licensing authority.
I do not propose to delve into the technical complexities of embryo research. We shall have an opportunity to do that when we come to debate clause 11 in more detail. Instead, I want to consider the overall issue without resorting to the detail. Research has been going on for more than 20 years. We sometimes forget that and think that it all started just before Baroness Warnock's committee was set up.
It is entirely right that a strong independent statutory licensing authority should be set up to supersede the interim licensing authority, sponsored by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaelocologists, which came into being five years ago on a non-statutory, voluntary basis. That voluntary authority has done an excellent job in monitoring research, and its report on research, published last November, is a valuable document, which I commend to those hon. Members who have not read it.
I think that we should first dispose of the horror stories told by some who say that scientists are eager to engage in cloning and other unethical practices. Reproductive technology, like all technology, is open to abuse as well as use, and the prevention of abuse is a major purpose of the Bill. As I said research has been taking place in Britain for 20 years with no real controls. It is the scientists and doctors involved—who, in my opinion, have behaved most responsibly—who have been calling for legislation that will control research, and that is what the Bill that has reached us from the House of Lords would achieve.
The Bill would outlaw genetic engineering and cross-species fertilisation, with the important exception of the hamster test—an important clinical technique used to assess male fertility, which was the subject of a debate in the House of Lords. The World Health Organisation warmly commends the test and it is accepted throughout the world as the most accurate test available. There is no possibility of the fertilisation having developmental potential because the human and animal cells are genetically incompatible. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind and put the horror stories that we so often hear out of their heads.
Outside the technicalities of research, I know that some people are worried about whether, from whatever ethical standpoint they have, any research should continue or

whether, by allowing research to be carried out up to 14 days, they put into question their view that a human being exists from the moment of conception. The question whether an embryo of 14 days—or, for that matter, of one day—should be accorded the status of human being has exercised minds much more brilliant than mine. The board of social responsibility of the Synod of the Church of England said in its report as early as 1984:
We have already expressed our view that a fertilised ovum should be treated with respect, but that its life is not so sacrosanct that it should be accorded the same status as a human being".
I am sure that hon. Members will have read the interesting speech on this matter by the Archbishop of York.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Lady aware that 700 clergy have written to us to dissociate themselves from the views of the Archbishop of York, with which they totally disagree?

Ms. Richardson: I have never suggested that all the theologians are on the same side. I have simply quoted, from a Library research document, what the Anglican Church said through its Synod, in 1984. Of course, people have different views on both sides of the ethical and moral argument—if we want to call it that. Some people have changed their minds over the past few years.
While for some the issue presents a big dilemma, I must state that many millions of fertilised eggs die naturally every day. Taking the trouble to identify the fertilised egg with the most chance of being implanted and producing a much wanted baby is surely to be welcomed. Research that helps to identify that embryo holds out hope for the thousands of women—one in eight of the women in this country that we know of—who are infertile and want a child. The many women who have benefited from research so far have been able to achieve motherhood when it was denied them before.
As research progresses it can offer a choice to women who previously had no choice but to remain childless. Research also gives hope to the large number of women who have multiple miscarriages. They are perhaps even more stressed and pained than those who have not been able to conceive. Research into miscarriages is beginning to show that they can be helped to carry through to term.
Perhaps the most disputed and emotive part of embryo research is that which is working towards helping a woman to give birth to a healthy baby. No one questions the joy that many parents derive from caring for their handicapped children. I am president of an organisation in my constituency called the good neighbour unit scheme. That small organisation was set up by half a dozen parents of handicapped children who met from time to time to give each other support. Because of my close connection with that organisation, I have seen the depth of love that they give to their children.
However, we must not overlook the desperate strain that those parents face when caring for their disabled children and looking after their families, perhaps including the disabled child's brothers and sisters. I have talked to all those families, and not one of them would have preferred their handicapped child not to be born whole and healthy and free from pain and frustration. I do not question their caring or love for the child who was born to them. However, each of those families told me how much they would have preferred their Liza or Jenny to be born whole, happy and free of disease.

Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Lady's argument with great care. Obviously the parents of those children would have liked them to have the great blessing of full physical health as most of us have in this place. Surely she is not saying that the parents of those children would rather not have them to look after.

Ms. Richardson: I hope that the hon. Lady will listen to me. I did not say that. I simply said that the parents of those children have told me that they wished that their children, whom they love, were healthier. Of course we all agree about that. We are trying to ensure that in future they have a choice and that children are free from pain and frustration.
We can all deplore the restrictions on funding for research to alleviate and perhaps cure the cruel suffering that many children face. However, it must be right that embryo research should continue with increasing understanding of the genetic defects that cause such cruel suffering. The aim of much of the research is to diagnose genetic disorders and to provide those at risk with an element of choice.
No patient is forced to participate. Those who want to take a chance are free to do so. After all, an amniocentesis test can take place later in pregnancy. I find it very difficult to understand those who deny the opportunity for tests at a much earlier stage. No one will prevent a woman from bearing a handicapped child if she and her partner are ready to undertake that burden. However, neither should anyone compel a woman to run the risk of having a handicapped child if she does not want that. Outlawing research would have that effect. We bear a heavy responsibility in reaching our decision.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the hon. Lady clear up a confusion on that point? The parents concerned are not being offered the choice of a child being born handicapped or healthy. They are merely being offered the choice of the child who might be born handicapped not being born at all. That is selective quality control of the human race. If the hon. Lady wants to defend that, we should be clear that that is what it is.

Ms. Richardson: I do not follow that line at all. Research offers the woman and her partner, who may perhaps already have a handicapped child, the opportunity to eliminate the hereditary gene or disorder and so enable the couple to have a whole and healthy child. We should allow the woman that opportunity and that choice.
I remind the House that the first thing that a doctor or midwife says when he or she sees the mother after the birth of a baby is, "Don't worry. The baby's okay. It's whole and healthy." So many women and their partners want to know immediately that they have a happy and healthy child even though a defect might become apparent later.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, and I know that he wants to speak later.
Before I discuss other points about the Bill, I want to refer to the dangers of allowing the separate subject of abortion to be included in this Bill. Those who are fervent in their desire to restrict women's choice by reducing the grounds for an abortion and the number of weeks beyond

which a woman may be denied an abortion have had more than enough vehicles in the shape of private Members' legislation to argue their case. There have been many attempts over the past 20 years, and traditionally the House has kept that issue to Back-Bench opportunities for legislation.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), many others and I deplore the fact that the Government have apparently given in to pressure from the vociferous lobby that has already sought to add its personal prejudices and beliefs to a number of unsuitable Bills. Indeed, I wondered at one stage whether it was going to include its prejudices in the poll tax. The Government have allowed the Bill's long title to be extended to enable abortion to be considered.

Mrs. Winterton: Give way.

Ms. Richardson: I shall give way in a moment. Just be patient.
The Secretary of State for Health did not mention that point, but it is important that we should consider it. The subject of abortion is so far removed from the overall intention of the Bill, which is to control research, that amendments, to any of the clauses are impossible. There will have to be new clauses and new matter. To tack abortion on to the end of the Bill, which as it stands is a humanitarian step forward, will serve only to confuse the issue of research and increase emotions.

Mrs. Winterton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Abortion Act 1967, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), got on to the statute book only because the previous socialist Government gave time for a private Member's Bill?

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Lady is perfectly right. The Labour Government of the day allowed time for a private Member's Bill to go on to the statute book. It was not tacked onto the end of a public Bill. Please let us be clear about this matter. We have a public Bill. It could be about anything. It could be about electricity privatisation, or it could be the poll tax Bill. [Interruption.] I am not being flippant. It is a public Bill; it is not a private Member's Bill. It is now proposed that the long title should enable private Members' legislation to be tacked on to the end.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mrs. Edwina Currie: rose—

Ms. Richardson: I am not giving way again. The two subjects are not the same.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I am not giving way again. I have given way already, and I am taking up the time for Back-Bench Members.
On the difficulty of marrying the two pieces of legislation together, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill covers Northern Ireland, but the Abortion Act 1967 does not cover Northern Ireland. I do not know how we shall get around that.


The House of Lords behaved sensibly and correctly. It took Lord Houghton's Bill alongside and not as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and debates were thus conducted in a sensible and comprehensive way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has provided the House with a similar opportunity. She introduced a ten-minute Bill that is now before the House, and amendments on abortion would best be discussed under her Bill, quite separately from this one. Under her Bill, we could address the problems of late abortions, about which many hon. Members are concerned, we could talk about better access to pregnancy testing, we could examine more information to encourage women to come forward as soon as possible, we could examine the reduction of delays in referral and treatment once women come forward, and so on. But those are not matters for a Bill about human fertilisation and embryology—they are separate issues.
We learned from the press over the weekend that the Government may use the Houghton Bill as a means of facilitating debate. As it stands and as it was passed in the House of Lords, that Bill is a progressive measure and is worthy of consideration as an entirely different piece of legislation. If we take abortion—I have the feeling that I am up against the combined might of the Government and those who are fanatically determined to include it; and I am not necessarily including all members of the Government—there is no guarantee that the Bill will go through as Lord Houghton proposes. In itself, it is a progressive measure, but there will be nothing to stop Members of the House of Commons who are opposed to abortion, who want to bring down the upper limit on abortion from, say, 28 weeks to 18 weeks, from trying also to alter the grounds of Lord Houghton's private Member's Bill. Whatever the House decides, it is unlikely or could be unlikely that Lord Houghton's Bill will survive intact.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not be deluded into believing that they will see the issue settled once and for all. The Government will have set a precedent that will encourage abortion amendments to future Government Bills. I appeal to the Government and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and beyond you to Mr. Speaker, even at this stage not to allow the Bill to be confused and overshadowed by an unconnected issue.

Mr. Alton: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point—

Ms. Richardson: I have not finished yet. I want to make one further point about abortion.
The Labour party has long been on record as in support of the Abortion Act 1967. Although we acknowledged the right of conscience, successive annual conferences have been clearly on record in support of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. If we are faced with the abortion issue, I appeal to Opposition Members, at a time when there is greater understanding that women want to make choices for themselves, to heed conference decisions and not to ignore women's wishes.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it has been a long-standing tradition of the Labour movement—perhaps its oldest tradition —that, on ethical questions of faith and morals, the

conscience consideration comes first? From her acquaintance with her own party, does she not know that whatever party decisions are made, conscience considerations still weigh very heavily with some of her hon. Friends?

Ms. Richardson: I have said—and I mean it—that the conscience clause exists. We allow hon. Members to make up their own mind. We have a free vote. However, I remind hon. Members that there is a conference decision on this matter. Here in the House of Commons, it would be good if hon. Members considered the many people who, on a different wavelength, have thought about their attitude to abortion. I beg my hon. Friends to consider that women within the Labour party and outside it feel extremely strongly about a male-dominated House of Commons taking a view on that point.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Richardson: I have given way many times. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish my speech. [Interruption.] All hon. Members wish to speak—they can have a go later. I wish to refer to one or two other issues in the Bill that concern me.
The Bill needs careful examination in respect of the composition and fundings of the licensing authority. It is only right that those directly affected by research and treatment—that is, infertile people and those who carry genetic disorders—are represented on the authority. I hope that matter will be considered carefully in Committee. Women who are infertile and who want to ensure that their child will be free from a hereditary genetic disorder that they may pass on, as well as people from the National Association for the Childless, are entitled to be considered. They all have a view about this matter. They will want to be assured that their views are taken into account. Thirty-six organisations subscribe to the prestigious organisation, the Genetic Interest Group, including some that are concerned with a particular hereditary disease. They too, want an opportunity to contribute. I hope that the Secretary of State can give an undertaking that he will consider people in those groups as well as organisations such as Mencap.
Another point that I raise with the Secretary of State is the current proposal in the Bill that the licensing authority should raise funds from clinics. That seems to be quite wrong. The full costs should be met from the public purse. Inevitably, charges will be passed on to patients. There is a serious lack of provision within the National Health Service for infertility treatment, with only two NHS-funded IVF centres in the country. Many patients are forced to resort to the private sector. Such extra charges amount to discrimination against the infertile and, in effect, a tax on infertility. There is considerable anxiety that clinics may not be able to continue.
I am also concerned because the Bill does not include GIFT—gamete intra-fallopian transfer. In many ways, it is close to in vitro fertilisation, which is covered. The difference between the two techniques is that in GIFT, fertilisation takes place inside the woman, whereas in IVF, it takes place in the laboratory. GIFT has been under discussion for many reasons and many people feel that it should be included in the Bill and properly controlled. I believe that it would be dangerous to leave the technique out of the Bill. The clinicians involved in the treatment are concerned, and the interim licensing authority has made it clear that any such Bill should take GIFT into account.


Unless GIFT is included in the Bill, couples who are considering whether to undergo the procedure will not have the statutory right to counselling, for example. Such copies need help in considering the risk that the procedure may result in a multiple birth and the implications of that for them. I do not know why the Government have not included GIFT, but I hope that we shall have an explanation from them.
Finally, I reiterate how very much I welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming and relates to something that causes a lot of emotion on both sides of the argument and will continue to do so. I hope that we shall consider it in Committee as clearly and in as measured a way as we can, in trying to reach a correct measure that is understandable to the general public. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading so that we can do just that. I profoundly hope that abortion amendments will not be tabled. If they are tabled, I hope that they will not be taken. When the time comes to discuss clause 11, on the contentious issue of allowing research to continue, I hope that hon. Members will vote as resoundingly as did their Lordships.
I repeat what I have reiterated so many times today: that controlled research will bring hope and perhaps the chance of fulfilment—I put it no higher than that—to infertile couples and to those who are carrying genetic disorders. Let us not deny them that hope.

Sir Bernard Braine: Human embryo experimentation is an emotive and controversial issue, raising questions which, for many of us, strike at the very heart of our beliefs about human life. Therefore, I begin by congratulating the Government on giving us a free vote on whether to allow such experimentation or not. I congratulate them also on providing the Bill with a long title that will enable us to table amendments to make a decision at long last on the scandal of late abortions, on which issue the House has pronounced before. Because of the tricks of some people, and because we were dealing with private Members' legislation, our will was frustrated.
On both these issues, which were previously left to private Members' legislation, the majority in the House has been repeatedly frustrated. That must not happen again, and on that I should like to give the Government a mild warning. I hope that there is no truth in the press hints of the past few days that the Government will seek to table an amendment on the Houghton proposal on late abortion that would have the effect of allowing abortions up to birth. That would be totally unacceptable. The mere suggestion that it might happen—I hope that there is no truth in it—would cause immense anger in the country.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government will not table any amendments on that subject that express a policy decision on behalf of the Government because the Government do not have a collective view on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, or its amendment. We must consider how we marshal the debate because, beyond doubt, hon. Members will want to discuss pro-Houghton, anti-Houghton, 26-week, 24-week, 22-week amendments and so on. The problem for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House is how to ensure that we can have an ordered debate because, no doubt, the House will have many propositions on which to vote on a free vote.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am glad that I have drawn that assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend We are all grateful, because what he has now said is clear. I should make it plain straight away that I am speaking not only for myself but for many of my hon. Friends who, on this issue, come from all parties, when I say that we shall not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. We shall reserve our position until we see how the votes proceed in Committee on the Floor of the House.
At long last, we have the Bill for which we in the all-party pro-life group have been calling since the publication of the Warnock report six years ago. As we know, the report recommended that experiments on human embryos should be allowed up to 14 days after fertilisation. However, what is often forgotten—it has not been mentioned so far this afternoon —is that the Warnock committee was not unanimous; there were sizeable dissenting voices. One of my advisers, who was a member of the Warnock committee, produced a minority report that came out against all destructive human embryo experimentation. Not surprisingly —as I was here at the time I can well remember this—the report was coolly received in both Houses of Parliament.
Let me come straight to the heart of the matter. What is the human embryo? Incidentally, the Warnock report refused to answer that question and skipped over it as though it did not really matter. As a consequence, much of the debate surrounding this issue has been concerned with the possible benefits of such research. However, for me and many others, that is the wrong starting point. Before talking about benefits, we must decide upon what or whom we are experimenting.
I ask myself two questions. First, is the embryo human? The answer is undoubtedly yes. It comes from a human sperm and a human egg, so what else could it be but human? Secondly, is it alive? Again, I have to answer yes. It is growing and developing at a tremendous rate. It has an orientation towards growth and is thus different from the previously inert sperm and egg. The simple fact is that the human embryo is a tiny human being, which has all the potential to become a foetus, a baby, a child and an adult, given a favourable environment and appropriate nutrients.
Having established what the human embryo is, I should like to make clear the position on experimentation arid research of the all-party pro-life group, of which I have been chairman for some years. We are not against all experimentation on human embryos. We are not against scientific research. What is in question is not research as such, but destructive research. The distinction is important. We have no problem with therapeutic experimentation that will help a particular embryo to live and grow.
What is immoral, in our view, is experimentation that uses one embryo—that is, another human being—as a means to an end. We are not against experimentation on human subjects. If a scientist requires human cells, he takes a graft and cultivates the cells. Provided that consent has been given, we have no objection to that. Such an experiment would not be fatal. We object to experimentation that kills the patient.
That is not an extreme position, as it is sometimes portrayed. Rather, it is the only logical and responsible position to take. We are not seeking to place unreasonable restrictions on scientists. We are not saying, "No research." All that we are saying is that such scientists should abide by the same principles of medical ethics as


apply to every other area of medicine. No other area of medical research demands the right to perform destructive research upon human subjects. No other area of research claims that progress cannot be made without the right to destroy. No other area of research comes to Parliament to ask us to suspend the usual rules of medical ethics for their benefit so that they can use human beings as they would use experimental animals.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Tens of thousands of families have benefited from the pioneering research that has been carried out by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards. Can my right hon. Friend name anyone who has suffered from such research?

Sir Bernard Braine: No, but my hon. Friend has not been listening to what I have been saying. His point has little to do with experimentation on the human embryo. I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I wish to set out clearly—beyond any doubt whatsover
—where the all-party pro-life group stands on this issue. We have been frustrated for six years. We have succeeded in obtaining majorities on the Benches of the House for our beliefs and for what we stand for, only to be frustrated. Therefore, I wish to be brief, sharp and to the point.
The Bill, as it has come to us from another place, proposes research up to 14 days. My first question is, 14 days after what? Something must have started 14 days previously to enable us to begin evaluating time. What was it that happened? The sperm fertilised the egg and a completely new entity was formed, directed towards its own growth and development. That was the beginning of a new human life. None of us claims that it is now fully formed. The only difference is one of size, not of humanity. Indeed, I would charge those who support embryo experimentation with improperly discriminating against another human being on the grounds of size.
What can be said of this proposed 14-day limit? If Parliament were to sanction 14 days, would that be the end of it? I think not. Already some leading experimenters tell us that they want to go further. For example, Professor Bob Williamson has said:
It should perhaps be noted here that organogenesis—(that is the development of the organs) … for the most part occurs at between 14 and 28 days of embryonic development. It is this area of research, which is central to the understanding of congenital malformation, which in my view would be most inhibited were a strict 14 day rule to be implemented.
In its paper on the development of the human conceptus, the Royal Society lists the possible benefits of research from day one to the end of the fourth week. That is well beyond 14 days. Why are such benefits listed when we are supposed to be dealing with a limit of 14 days? The answer is that Baroness Warnock herself stated on the day that her report was published in 1984 that 14 days
would do for a beginning.
That is what we are faced with here.
Therefore, the conclusion that I reach is that, far from a stringent control on experimentation, 14 days will be the thin end of the wedge. I cannot accept that the Bill constitutes strict guidelines. On the contrary, apart from cloning, genetic engineering and producing animal hybrids, the scientist will be able to do what he likes under

the Bill. It is laudable that those extreme forms of human manipulation will be outlawed, but there is nothing at all to protect embryos from destructive procedures.
When one bases decision-making on the proposed benefits of a type of research, rather than its morality, one will always be under pressure to extend that limit when greater benefits are envisaged. That is no way to make law. The anticipated benefits of research seem compelling, but they are misleading. The case for permitting embryo research rests heavily on the benefits that it will allegedly bring in prevention of handicap.
Let us consider the word "prevention". The normal use of the word suggests that the person in question avoids a disease. However, the word as employed in this context has changed its meaning. Here it means eliminating the individual with the disease and in that way preventing it. We all want to see diseases and handicaps eliminated, but this is totally different from preventing the handicapped from living. That is what is involved in embryo research. It is the "search and destroy" mentality—searching out the imperfect and destroying them just because they do not match up to our ideas of perfection. On that basis, Beethoven would never have been born.
It is a fallacy, too, that without destructive research on the human embryo, research into genetic diseases will be brought to a halt. Great advances have been made in treatment of genetic and chromosomal diseases without the use of human embryos. Crucial developments in sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and congenital adrenal hyperplasia have all been achieved without human embryo experimentation. Genuine help for sufferers and families will come from advances in treatment of the disorder, not from the destruction of those who are identified at the embryonic stage. The pro-research group Progress has admitted:
Research using human pre-embryos is not, and never has been, concerned with the treatment of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities".

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: On the question of language I would point out another semantic difference that has entered this debate. That is the term "pre-embryo". It did not appear in the Warnock report. One would look for it in vain in any medical dictionary. The distinguished scientific journal Nature recommended the banning of the term and said:
Put simply, this usage is a cop-out, a way of pretending that the public conflict about IVF and other innovations in human embryology can be made to go away by means of an appropriate nomenclature.
The term "pre-embryo" was invented to confuse and baffle and to dehumanise the early embryo.
Let us also get rid of the fallacy that all doctors and scientists are in favour of destructive embryo research. I am advised by a distinguished group of scientists and doctors. I shall mention a few. Professor John Marshall is emeritus professor of clinical neurology at the university of London. He was a member of the Warnock committee and signed the expression of dissent. Another is Professor Erwin Chargaff, who is emeritus professor of biochemistry at Columbia university. He is probably one of the most distinguished figures in medicine in the United States. His work in the 1940s provided crucial information that was to lead to Watson and Crick's formulation of a model of DNA. Professor Sir John Dewhurst was president of the


Royal College of Obstretricians and Gynaecologists and is now emeritus professor at Queen Charlotte's hospital in London. I could keep the House here all night if I mentioned all the doctors who have written to me—and doubt to other hon. Members—in support of our position.
The media have created the impression that all scientists are in favour of destructive embryo research. That is a lie. I assert that here on the Floor of the House. They are not. Despite all our protests, the BBC in particular continues to peddle that line.
I am also perturbed by the proposal in the Bill to establish a statutory licensing authority. At present all the decision-making in this important area is given to a body which will be far from the reach of Parliament and the public. If I may adopt Winston Churchill's words, "Up with this we will not put."
Let us contrast the proposed procedure with the licensing of research work involving animals. In animal research, the Home Secretary has to grant a licence to the scientists involved and for each separate experimental project that they wish to conduct. That makes the Home Secretary directly responsible to the House for the licences that he issues. Even in this context the human embryo would have no more protection than the laboratory rat. The granting of licences for research involving human embryos should therefore be in the hands of the Secretary of State for Health, who in turn should be directly answerable to the House. The subject is so important that we would find no other arrangement acceptable.
May I remind the House of a few basic principles of medical ethics that have stood the test of time and are now in danger of being forgotten? I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not refer to them or explain how the Bill fitted into what most people would regard as medical ethics. The Helsinki declaration states clearly:
In research on man the interests of science and society should never take precedence over consideration relating to the well-being of the subject.
A distinguished paediatrician, Dr. Anthony Cole wrote to me recently. He said:
On the question of human embryo experimentation the onus is upon those who support it to demonstrate that the interests of society and its values are not endangered.
I am not convinced that those who support such experimentation have done this or, can do so. Indeed, one leading pro-experimenter, Dr. Robert Edwards, has remarked blithely,
Scientists make ethics as they go along.
There is a short answer to such arrogance, and Parliament must give it. Although the issues may seem complex to the lay person, the question posed by the Bill is very simple. It is, do we favour the destruction of human life, or not?

Sir David Steel: The members of my party, in common with those of other parties represented in this House, have a free vote on the Bill. I shall advance only my own views. I believe that they carry the support of the majority of my colleagues, but by no means all of them. In particular, I am conscious that my vocal hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put a very different point of view.
I welcome the tone of the opening speech of the Secretary of State for Health, and particularly the fact that the Bill is presented to the House with a timetable motion

attached. Many right hon. and hon. Members have sat through the progress of legislation when clauses 1 and 2 have been exhaustively debated but the remainder rushed through under a guillotine, and we have long argued for such a sensible reform as the attaching of a timetable motion. If the House could proceed with more timetable motions on an agreed basis, the quality of our legislation would improve. Let us hope that the Bill sets a welcome precedent that will be followed in future.
I do not propose to speak on the arguments about abortion. The other place was sensible to keep the two issues separate. If that is not to be, and if the Government are determined to introduce a clause on the entirely different subject of abortion, I shall address myself to it at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, I shall confine my remarks to the Bill as it stands.
I read carefully and welcomed the Warnock report, which was lucidly and logically argued—but time has moved on since that report was published in 1984. I take up immediately a point made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, because, unlike him, I believe that the phrase "pre-embryo" has a definitive and useful meaning that helps to clarify our debates. A paper submitted by the Medical Research Council makes this point:
In vitro fertilisation has made the early stages of development more important to scientists and as a consequence there is a need for a precise term to denote the conceptus in the first fourteen days after fertilisation prior to the appearance of the 'primitive streak' (the first sign of a human individual).
The MRC also quotes the words of the Reverend Professor Dunstan:
For upwards of two thousand years the embryo has been used to denote growth of the organism in the womb from the time of the first formation of the body parts until their completion followed by the fetal stage in which the completed baby grows to viability. Now that science has revealed a vital pre-embryonic stage of cellular activity before orgariogenesis can begin an appropriate name should be given to it. Pre-embryo seems a proper name to describe this stage in development.
I agree, and the right hon. Member for Castle Point skipped over that point in his description of the development of the embryo.
I am in agreement also with the Archbishop of York and the majority of the bishops in the other place when they argue that, as the pre-embryo is, up to the 14th day, a cell over whose destiny no decision has yet been made as to whether it ever becomes a human being, or indeed, twins, or triplets, there is no sense in which it cart be claimed that it can have an identity or a human personality, or that it can be treated as a human being in the way that the rhetoric of others attempts to suggest. Because the pre-embryo has no identity, it must have a special legal status, as set out in the Bill.
I am unable to accept some of the language used by certain organisations and lobbyists. I could even read across the Chamber a leaflet in the hands of the right hon. Member for Castle Point that used the words "human vivisection". That is a total misnomer when applied to the Bill before us.

Sir David Price: Does not the hon. Gentleman make a distinction from the moment of implantation? To me, no such clear distinction has been made in any of the debates in another place. I believe that there is a distinction to be drawn between the fertilised egg


before implantation and after implantation. Many of the problems that arise with twins, for example, occur at the earlier stage, not the latter.

Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is probably perfectly correct. I do not claim any great wisdom in matters of medical science, and I acknowledge that there are different stages of development. It is quite wrong to pretend that it is one continuous, unaltering process from day one to the ninth month. The Bill attempts to draw a line at a particular recognised point.
In view of regular scientific developments and the strong views held by right hon. and hon. Members, it would be useful if the Government would accept an amendment to provide for an annual debate on, for example, a report from the licensing authority. I hope that the regulations may be altered to allow for that.
It is important that the public should be clear on the issues and not be misled as to what the Bill will and will not permit. It will not allow experiments on the foetus, cross-genetic breeding with other species, or destructive experimentation of a kind that the whole House would find repugnant. Those who argue against any research do so on the basis of establishing their own certainties—which they are perfectly entitled to do, but which they are not entitled to inflict on others.
At the time of the Warnock report, my brother, who is a research doctor, told me that an aspect of the opposition to its proposals that puzzled him was that one of the purposes of such research is to discover the reason why certain women suffer repeated, spontaneous miscarriages. I thought that those who value life, in the sense that they use the word, would also be concerned to stop the waste of life that is represented by repeated miscarriages.
I do not deny that individual scientists, doctors and clergymen, as well as right hon. and hon. Members, oppose the Bill, but we should acknowledge also that the organisations who support it include the National Association for the Childless, the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaeocologists, the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, and the Genetic Interest Group, which comprises no fewer than 36 organisations dealing mainly with the disabled. They all urge the House to support embryonic research and its legalisation.
I conclude by quoting a letter that I received from the father of four severely handicapped children—one of whom died:
In many of these illnesses, our own among them, there is every hope that the couple in question can produce healthy children at subsequent pregnancies. In our case, the probability of any given pregnancy resulting in a genetically damaged child is 50 per cent. The statistical chance is the same at each subsequent pregnancy. We were just very unlucky that all four of our children were born with Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome.
He adds:
For our condition there is no cure, but prediction and prevention may very soon be possible. Genetic research is on the point of a breakthrough into techniques which will enable doctors to advise young parents about the future of any children as yet unborn.
He concludes:
This progress, and our hope for our families, is threatened by people who oppose genetic research without reservation, or much reason. Frequently their argument is based on emotion, rather than logic. I accept their right to

hold those views, but I do not accept their right to impose them on others. Members of our families are having to undergo laser treatment to their eyes, kidney operations, spine operations, and brain operations. In spite of these treatments some of us go blind, and a few of us die. It is against this background that I am writing to ask for your support.

Sir Charles Morrison: Just as I agree whole-heartedly with the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), equally I whole-heartedly disagree with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I regret that, not only because my right hon. Friend is an old and valued colleague, but because he speaks with the authority of Father of the House.
I want to take up two points made by my right hon. Friend. He spoke with considerable scepticism about the research that has already occurred. In comparison with my right hon. Friend, I have been in the House for a relatively short time only, but just over 20 years ago I visited a hospital in my constituency for the mentally subnormal. I was taken round by the doctor in charge and I remember passing a door to a ward through which the doctor did not lead me. I asked what was in there, but the doctor told me that we were not going into that particular ward.
I persisted with my questioning and I was told that it was a children's ward. I said that I should like to visit that ward, but the doctor told me that I would not. I persisted in my desire to see it and the doctor told me that, if I insisted, I should take a grip of myself. he was right to give me that advice, because when I went into that ward I saw human beings, none of them over the age of 10, who were virtually unrecognisable as such. Nowadays, that ward does not exist because of research undertaken in the past.
My right hon. Friend also said that, as a result of the Bill, a scientist would be able to do what he wanted. I do not believe that that is so. In future, any scientist who undertakes research will do so only under the provisions of clause 11 and schedule 2. According to my reading, the Bill certainly does not allow a scientist to do what he wants.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the research takes place under the aegis of self-regulation? It is precisely because the therapeutic benefit of what is done is decided by the scientists and the doctors that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was entirely justified in his claim—they will have the right to determine the question.

Sir Charles Morrison: I disagree with my hon. Friend. Until now, we have lived in a completely self-regulatory world, but, in future, that will not be so. It is clear that there is a disagreement about the meaning of the Bill in this respect.
The Bill is only before us because of advances in scientific and medical knowledge and because of the continuing potential for research, as well as for the application of existing or future knowledge and its consequences. There is nothing new about such research, but it has advanced so far and its application is growing to such an extent that legislation is necessary not only to regulate research on embryos and to protect the integrity of reproductive medicine, as well as the legal position of the scientist or clinician, but to take account of social and ethical considerations.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, but does he accept that, at some future date, some other people will be sitting here debating whether the advances made by experimentation mean that the 14-day stage stated in the Bill is inadequate? What type of moral dilemma will face those who must decide at what stage such experimentation becomes what some of us would regard as the killing of a human being? By discussing the Bill as it is framed, we are postponing the time when such a decision will be made.
If the experts in experimentation were to tell us today that experiments on an embryo of 17 days could well result in a cure for one of the genetic diseases, what would we then do?

Sir Charles Morrison: I wish that I could foresee what might happen about any issue. With all respect, the hon. Gentleman is making a hypothetical point. I do not know what will happen in the future, except that, if the Parliament of the day is presented with the type of question the hon. Gentleman posed, it will pass judgment upon it, just as we are being asked to pass judgment on the questions contained in the Bill. It is impossible to foresee what might happen.
Given the present stage of research and development, a recognised need for legislation has arisen. I do not believe that there is any logic in legislating to bring such research to an end. I recognise, of course, that the House must strike a balance between what is ethically acceptable and what it might be possible to achieve or attempt to achieve through research.
As a result of the Bill, the House must consider the status of human beings and their ability to reproduce their own species, as well as the status of the means by which that is achieved. It is our good fortune that the Bill has already been considered in another place. As a result, I believe that it is in pretty good order, but three matters will need further attention in Committee.
First, the cost of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority should be borne totally by the public purse. That authority will act for all people, so its costs should not be borne by a charge on the infertile, as clause 43(7) implies. Secondly, concern has been expressed to me about the authority's register of information and the anonymity of donors. The Committee will have to consider that issue carefully. Thirdly, it is important to consider GIFT—gamete intra-fallopian transfer. Although it is similar to in vitro fertilisation, IVF, it is not currently within the remit of the authority. On the basis of what I have been told, however, it should be, and there is need for regulation on this as there is in other areas.
Overall I whole-heartedly accept the need for the Bill, for an authority and for regulation. Against the background of control, there is a continuing need for research, notably on the matters mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he introduced the Bill.
First, it is important to improve the success rate of IVF above the present level of between 10 and 15 per cent. Secondly, improved knowledge of pre-implantation diagnosis could reduce the annual number of abortions by about 1,500. That would be welcome, since those abortions take place as a result of the detection of abnormalities at up to 16 weeks. If abnormalities

stemming from genetic disorders could be detected through identifying the affected embryos, all the trauma of a late abortion could be avoided.
Thirdly, it amazes me that, even now in the 1990s, one in five pregnancies end in miscarriage. Surely more research is needed on that. Fourthly, research would also help infertility, which affects about one in 10 couples in the United Kingdom. Fifthly, research could also aid contraception, which could be of major help to family planning.
In all five of those sectors, research is being undertaken at present under the control of the interim licensing authority. I was glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew attention to the fact that, as far as we know, no decision made by that authority has been questioned. That shows that the self-governing work which has so far been undertaken has been carried out with the greatest possible responsibility. I am convinced that research presently being undertaken must continue.
I do not believe that the Bill is a suitable vehicle for further consideration of abortion. However, if there is to be an abortion amendment, I hope that, ultimately, the House will decide to accept and agree with the provisions of the Bill introduced in another place by Lord Houghton.
Praise and the greatest possible respect are given to parents of handicapped children, which must be absolutely right. One must understand that some of those parents are opposed to research, and I am sure that this is because of the happiness brought into their lives by their children. However, with the greatest humility, I suggest that those who are even better qualified than the parents to pass judgment about research are the handicapped people themselves. What would their answer be to the question, "If you were to have a child, would you want it to be free of the affliction from which you have suffered?"
If research were to be banned in the United Kingdom, surely the benefits from such research undertaken elsewhere should also be banned from use in this country. To do otherwise would be a major hypocrisy.
Although I have two Roman Catholic grandchildren, for better or worse I am not a member of that Church, and thus its disciplines are not imposed on me. I have the luxury of being a part of the lesser certainty that exists in the Church of England. In discussions about human fertilisation and embryology, I find it impossible to conclude that there are any certainties or absolutes. However, as a Christian, I believe that benefits for mankind stem, in origin, from divine intervention. I cannot be certain about that, but that is my belief. Therefore, when research can be undertaken which may produce benefit, but also gives rise to other ethical considerations, balance and moderation are needed. I believe that the Bill provides those qualities.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I subscribe entirely to the recent statement by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster that nothing demonstrates more dramatically the collapse of moral consensus in Britain today than the prolonged and, at times, bitter debate over issues of love, life, marriage and the family. Equally important are the profoundly moral arguments about the origin of life, the status of the embryo and the freedom to experiment, and then destroy, human life in its first 14 days.


The phrase "medical ethics" is now a contradiction in terms. From the time of Hippocrates until the early post-war period, doctors took the oath. They no longer do so because it has become a farce, as the oath contained an explicit undertaking not to cause harm to a child in the womb. Until quite recently, medical dictionaries and textbooks made it plain that human life began at the moment of conception, but no longer. Recent editions are evasive, not because of any advance in medical science, but because specious, ex post facto justification is sought for abortion and, now, for experimentation on little children. That is why those two subjects need to be taken together in the Bill.

Mr. Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the experiments on little children which he has just mentioned will take place? I do not understand.

Mr. Duffy: I am coming to that. One of the worries about allowing research on embryos within the first 14 days is that it could lead to wider forms of research than are intended by Parliament. As an example of how the abandoning in law of a basic medical ethic can lead to unforeseen consequences, we need look no further than the Abortion Act 1967. I need look no further than my city of Sheffield, where the percentage of terminations of pregnancy continues to be considerably higher than the average for England and Wales. Section 4 of the Act, which relates to handicapped children, is invoked for less than 1 per cent. of all those terminations.
There is nothing illogical about combining legislation on abortion and embryonic research, despite the objections voiced in one of the opening speeches, because a human embryo is a human embryo whether it is in a test tube or in utero. A rose is a rose not only by any other name, but no matter where it is or at what stage of its development. Therefore, it is not illogical to view the human embryo as something that should neither be killed in some circumstances or used for certain research purposes.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally incongruous that today, in National Health Service and other hospitals, there are doctors fighting to save the lives of children born at 22 weeks for parents who desperately need them, while further down the corridor, doctors are doing exactly the opposite for a child of 26 to 28 weeks?

Mr. Duffy: It is more than incongruous, it is downright immoral. [Interruption.] I hope that I did not hear someone on the Front Bench sniggering at the mention of the word "moral" because it will be heard a good deal more before I sit down. Morals cannot be confined to individuals and do not arise from individual preferences. They are not based on utilitarian consequences. I suggest that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench should consult a dictionary about the meaning of the word.
The vital decisions that we reach on human fertilisation and embryology, and subsequently on pregnancy termination, must affect how we regard the status of each individual, his or her human rights, the treatment of the handicapped, and the fate of the senile and the terminally ill. How we treat human life at any of its stages is of the highest moral significance. Once we are convinced that we

have the right to determine when life becomes human and when it ceases to be so, we stand in danger of creating a society that is potentially self-destructive.
Therefore, we need to proceed with the greatest care. Embryo research is complex, and involves a spectrum of medical, scientific, ethical and moral issues. It also abounds in myths and partial truths. The first is the notion that freedom to experiment on human embryos is necessary to help infertile couples. But is that so? A recent article and correspondence in the Lancet on the benefits of in vitro fertilisation raised important questions about the cost of IVF, its benefits and the ratio of cost to benefit. Other critics of IVF point to its experimental status, its uncertainty, its as yet unappraised risk factors and the divergent rates of success. That doubt was raised in a report of the World Health Organisation's regional office for Europe, entitled "Are In Vitro Fertilisation and Embryo Transfer of Benefit to All?"
There is a remarkable lack of scientifically based assessment of worldwide rates of success, and that has inevitably led to doubt about what the real success rates are. There is also growing doubt about whether further embryo research is the best way forward, and there is even increased recognition that assisting fertility does not depend on IVF alone. For example, microsurgery for women, the growth of services for male infertility and new techniques of molecular biology show that the lack of destructive experimentation would not, ipso facto, impede improvements in the treatment of fertility. We are assured that other methods are coming along—as good as, and increasingly better than, such experimentation, provided that they are not starved of financial, human and material resources because of the IVF programme. We all invoke and welcome the results of the IVF programme, whenever we meet them. I am godparent to an adorable child who was conceived using this method and I know what great joy he has brought to his family and to many of his parents' friends.
The second myth is that embryo experimentation is necessary in the fight against inherited genetic disease. Yet it now seems clear from a booklet issued by the pro-research group, Progress, entitled, "Freedom to Choose", that research on the embryo with respect to genetic diseases is directed not a cure but at prevention. The public have been misled into thinking that embryo research will produce cures for diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, as most hon. Members must know from their post bags. Will those in favour of human embryo research give the House one example of what has been discovered in research into genetic diseases that could not have been discovered in another way?
It is a matter of the highest priority that research should continue into improving the lives of handicapped people. One of the more consoling aspects of our present dark age is that we now give much more attention to the mentally and physically handicapped than we did even 25 or 30 years ago. On all sides we are aware of the enormous love and care that a mother and father will exhibit towards a handicapped child. So I hope that we shall not make heavy weather of this point during the rest of this debate.
No one who saw "Songs of Praise", broadcast a week ago from St. Mary's cathedral, Middlesbrough, can fail to have been touched by the spirit of Dominic, who has Down's syndrome, or inspired by the devotion of his mother, Mrs. Norah Jones, for whom Dominic is, as she said, all the more precious. She went on:


In the company of handicapped children you feel you're as near to Heaven as you'll ever get on this earth.
The third and probably most mistaken and dangerous notion is that the medical and scientific establishment is not violating the sanctity of human life but is taking welcome advantage of the new-found possibilities of research into fertilised cells before they attain human status. A unique biological event occurs with the conjunction of egg and sperm, as I am sure we all agree. The contribution of modern genetics has shown, however, that the genetic code is a fundamental organising principle and that there is radical unity long before the 14-day stage.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will not mind my quoting her remarks in a recent issue of "The House Magazine". She said that, at this stage, the embryo
consists of a few cells the size of a pin head and it would clearly be absurd to place its welfare on the same footing with that of so many other human beings whose hopes and needs might benefit from the research.
My hon. Friend is not alone in that view: it was quoted often enough in the recent debate in another place, so she is in good company.
At some stage of our lives all of us in the Chamber were indistinguishable little globules made of a few cells. Who could have predicted how or why those globules would turn into the different individuals that we are, or which one would turn into which person?

Mr. Doug Henderson: Does my hon. Friend, and do other hon. Members who have campaigned with him on this issue, agree that ultimately the arguments are about the balance of morality, and that one must balance the theological view that he has just put against the potential benefit to people who, in the absence of further embryo research, would end up being disabled for the rest of their lives, or to the children who will not be born because of their parents' infertility?

Mr. Duffy: A calculation about morality is a contradiction in terms; my hon. Friend does not understand the meaning of morality. Secondly, there is no lack of concern in the House about the handicapped or about improving their lot. Nor is there any lack of appreciation of the lot of the parents of handicapped children, or any lack of admiration for them.
The status of the human embryo and its dignity and rights under the law should be determined by the human life that it undoubtedly has from the beginning. It is recognition that it undoubtedly has from the beginning. It is recognition of that continuous human development that compels me to oppose on principle any proposal to treat this human life in the same way as experimental tissue.
There is no evidence that scientists need human embryos for any worthwhile research, yet we are in serious danger of crossing the fine line that separates science from the eugenics of a brave new world—and we may be alone, for more and more countries are examining this practice and becoming increasingly concerned about its ethical considerations. It has been forbidden in Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Portugal and parts of Australia. It will soon be forbidden in West Germany, and the European Council of Ministers has recommended the same course of action.
It is interesting that the German Government should be taking so strong a line. Memories of the recent shameful abuse of human life by German doctors and scientists are

still fresh and have alerted people to the evil potential of test tube biotechnology. Yet the German Bill has been criticised by the SPD and the Green party on the grounds that it does not go far enough in protecting the embryo or controlling the enthusiasm of doctors and researchers. The Germans have had experience of this sort of thing, and we are only just beginning.
We need to remind ourselves continually that the end does not justify the means; that men and women are more than a bundle of cells; and that they have incomparable potential. Let us then stop playing God with the lives of unborn children—we are not sexing chickens. We have a duty to uphold respect for human dignity.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I realise that this debate will be dominated by discussion, such as that in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), of the possibility of experimentation on embryos, but I want to confine almost all my speech to another problem that the Bill raises. I refer to clause 27 and the meaning of "the mother".
However, to fall in line with everyone else, I want first to say a brief word about experiments. I have listened extremely carefully to many of my constituents and to many people outside this House, but I have always found it very had to agree with those who claim that an embryo or foetus that cannot yet exist in a free state should be able to demand the same protection under the law as that same entity should demand after it is able to exist in a free state.
That is why I shall vote, if I have the opportunity, to reduce the stage of a pregnancy by which an abortion can take place from the present 28 weeks, and it is why I agree with a large majority in another place, and with the Secretary of State, that strictly controlled experiments on embryos up to 14 days should be allowed. Many children and families could be saved enormous distress over infertility or disease by this move. The example quoted by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was of a constituent of mine who had written to the right hon. Gentleman. I am conscious of the case that he quoted to the House.
Clause 27 follows the Warnock recommendations by defining the mother as the woman who carries the child, having had either an embryo or sperm and eggs placed in her. I do not disagree with that judgment because it is right in almost all circumstances. My speech and those of other hon. Members seem to revolve on our constituents. I have a most important case in my constituency which should make the House and the Government think again about the operation of clause 27.
That case involves a couple. The wife has no uterus and is quite incapable of bearing children. However, she has ovaries and ovulates normally, and some time ago ova flushed from her body were fertilised in a laboratory by her husband's sperm. These fertilised ova led to what I shall call embryos, which were placed in the uterus of a lady who agreed to carry the growing embryos. I am assured that she did so without fees. In due time, the lady gave birth to twins and gladly handed them over to their genetic parents, my constituents. The House can imagine the enormous joy of my constituents when at last they were able to have children who were entirely their own. They are


smashing children and I have met them. They are very young. They were united with their genetic parents with the full support of the surrogate mother.
All went well. The authorities who look after such things were entirely happy for my constituents to have the children. The rub was that the authorities said that as they understood the law the couple would have to adopt the children. My constituents said, "Certainly not, they are our children. It is like buying one's own possessions back." Ultimately the case will go to the courts. It was referred to in The Times of 28 February by the solicitor concerned, and I do not propose to say any more about that case.
I think that I am right in saying that my constituents are the first example of such a thing happening in this country. No doubt more will follow in the years ahead, although I do not suppose that there will be many. I want the Secretary of State to think hard about this case. It is hard to argue that my constituents are not the father and mother of the twins. It should be quite simple for us to deal with such a situation. It will not happen often, but it should be dealt with during the progress of the Bill.
We should consider amending clause 27 so that in cases of the sort that I have described, a judge in the family division of the High Court could make an order relating to the children, granting parental responsibility or awarding care and control of the children to their genetic mother either on her own or with another. In such cases, the genetic mother should for all purposes be treated as the mother of the child. That would be a sensible change in the Bill and I hope that the Committee will consider it.
If that amendment or something like it were to be made, it would apply only when the identity of the genetic mother had been positively ascertained through genetic fingerprinting, which can be done nowadays. Secondly, it would happen only when the surrogate mother, as in the case I have quoted, had no reservations about the judgment and whose emotional attachment to the child did not cause any serious objections to that judgment.
As I have said, this would happen rarely. I cannot believe that an amendment of the sort that I have proposed would in itself encourage surrogacy, which I do not particularly want to do. It would add common sense to an unusual, unsatisfactory and unfair situation, as my constituents have found to their cost. They have met enormous difficulty in connection with the case that they will have to take to the courts in the next few months.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind hon. Members that we are now into the 10-minute limit on speeches and that it will apply until 9 o'clock.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has highlighted the need for this legislation. Changes have taken place because of developments in medicine and science, and opportunities for families exist now that did not exist a generation ago. We have to face the questions that those matters raise in the same way as the Warnock committee faced them. I support the Bill and strongly support the provision brought in by the Lords for research to be allowed. I realise that this is a contentious issue and that it will be fiercely debated at later stages in the progress of the Bill.
I should declare a family interest. We lost two boys, Alun and Geraint, in late 1984, early 1985, within three months of each other. They suffered from a severe genetic disability which caused mental and physical handicap. We have two other children, Eluned and Hywel who, mercifully, are free from that condition. The problems that we faced were no different from the problems faced by thousands of other people in these islands. Millions are at risk from conditions such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis and from about 1,000 genetic disorders.
Every one of us probably carries two or three gene defects, and it is a matter of luck that we do not meet another person who carries the same defects and produce offspring with handicaps. It is a matter of luck that other hon. Members do not meet the problem of genetic handicap within their own families. Some hon. Members may have children who are carriers of one or more of the common types of genetic defect and who may marry someone who is also a carrier.
Some hon. Members may become grandparents and, totally without warning or explanation, will have to watch helplessly as their grandchildren suffer the effects of a severe genetic disorder, sometimes in excruciating pain. They will have to watch helplessly as their grandchildren die a slow death. Some genetic conditions create self-mutilation among babies, and grandparents have to watch that, too. They may have to share the agony of their children having to face a decision about whether to try for another child, having lost one who had a physical disability.
As has been said, the chances of the disability appearing in a subsequent child may be 1:2 or 1:4. Perhaps the parents will hope that it will not happen again and that all will be well. However, many do not try again because they are unwilling to bring into the world a baby who will face the same suffering that they have seen already. That could happen to any one of us and it is happening to dozens of our constituents.
How can such suffering be avoided? If it is diagnosed early enough in pregnancy, can anything be done to put the defect right? The Bill has massive implications for families at risk from genetic disorders. In its present form it will allow vital research to continue within strict guidelines. I congratulate the House of Lords on its massive majority in favour of research. For that reason I shall support the Bill. As the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, if the restrictive clause were built in at a later stage of the Bill, I, like the right hon. Gentleman, would review my position because that consideration is very important.
I draw to the attention of the House comments that were made in New Scientist on 4 November under the title "Why experiment on human embryos?" It says:
Politicians will decide whether to make illegal what is now a thriving area of progress in our understanding of human reproduction and early development … It would prevent the diagnosis of severe genetic disorders in embryos, which recent research has shown to be feasible. It would hinder the development of new forms of contraception, such as vaccines. And it would prevent any significant improvement in the treatment of infertility.
I draw attention also to comments that I believe have been forwarded to hon. Members by the Royal Society. They were published at the same time as the White Paper. It says:
The Royal Society believes it is essential that research, under proper control, should be allowed to continue. Much embryological research, including that related to in vitro


fertilisation, is carried out with animals. However, one cannot extrapolate safety the results of studies in animals to the human context … It would be irresponsible and clinically unacceptable to replace in the womb fertilized human eggs that have been subjected to novel procedures or tests.
On genetic disease, the Royal Society said:
Currently, the only way of preventing the transmission of genetic disease is to test fetuses at 8-16 weeks gestation and to abort those that are affected. Research on human embryology has offered the prospect of testing developing eggs at an early stage to indentify those that will be affected by, or those that carry, serious genetic disease, such as Duchenne musclular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis, and of replacing in the womb only those found free from such defective genes … Legislation prohibiting further research on human embryological material would, at worst, altogether prevent certain advances in medical treatment of great potential benefit to the infertile or those carrying serious genetic disorders. At best, it would suspend such advances before their full development … The Royal Society therefore strongly supports the continuation of research under the conditions specified".
That is important.
The Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain has also implored us to allow such research to continue. Its director, Paul Walker, a practising Roman Catholic, believes that that is vital for those who suffer from muscular dystrophy. Mencap implores us to allow the research to continue, as does the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust, the Genetic Interest Group, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Medical Research Council. Research is supported by a proportion of the clergy, although I accept that among the clergy, as among the medical profession, opinion is divided.
The Bill has vital implications for 250,000 couples who cannot have children. The IVF programme has helped families in Britain to have children; there are over 1,000 such children. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred to the pride that he takes in his godchild who was brought into the world by means of that technique. Had there been restrictive sections in the legislation a generation ago, those who are now happily running round would not be here. We cannot have it both ways. We need acceptable research. A restrictive clause would stop research into improving contraception, thus avoiding later abortions of unwanted pregnancies. I join those who regret the fact that the Government intend to introduce an amendment that will allow abortion to be linked with that question.
As for research that has led to exciting breakthroughs in recent months and years, may I refer to muscular dystrophy? The gene that causes muscular dystrophy has been identified. Within the next two or three years, we shall be able to select pre-embryos that do not have the defective gene. That will allow healthy boys and girls to be born to those at risk. That is a tremendous move forward.
I quote from Professor Bobrow, one of the country's leading authorities on the clinical genetics of muscular dystrophy:
I believe that pre-embryo biopsy for the detection of Duchenne muscular dystrophy will be possible within two to three years. The genetic techniques will be developed by then; what will be needed is time to validate the safety of embryo biopsy.
A large number of people suffer from cystic fibrosis. Those of us who are in touch with the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust and receive its newsletter will have seen that the March newsletter is headed, in red, "At last we've found the gene!" It says:
I am sure that as a supporter of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust you were delighted with the news that at last

we have found the gene … Now at last we can embark upon the next stage in our quest to understand and finally conquer Cystic Fibrosis.
The trust's newspaper carries similar exciting prospects.
In those circumstances, where hope is being offered to families who otherwise would not have it, how can we take on ourselves the responsibility of shutting the door of hope when we are so close to seeing progress being made! Can the House, in all conscience, even contemplate a legal ban on such marvellous pioneering work? How can we ban essential research of his type? Are we so certain that we are absolutely correct? Are we to say to our constituents, "Our children are all right. We are sorry that yours are suffering from a crippling disablement, but we are prepared to legislate to reduce your hope of being helped by the medical profession." I realise that all the answers may not be immediately forthcoming. Some may take years. Surely, however, the message is:
Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I intend to concentrate on the ethical aspects of the debate. When the alternative clauses are debated—and subsequently, I hope, the abortion clauses—detailed arguments will be put forward. We shall then hear that opinion is not unanimous among the medical, scientific or theological interest groups. There is disunity among embryologists as to whether the further destructive use of embryos will improve in vitro fertilisation or whether it will make a material contribution towards finding a cure.
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), was right to point not to the words of the pro-life movement, or to those of the Roman Catholic Church, or to those of the major interest groups on our side of the argument, but to the words of the pro-research scientists themselves in a document that they circulated to right hon. and hon. Members in an effort to persuade us to support research.
The document said that research on embryos is not and never has been concerned with pure research, or with the treatment of chromosomal disorders. What worries me is what I regard as the cruel deceit—probably accidental but nevertheless thoroughly perpetrated on the parents of children who suffer from highly distressing disorders and diseases—that this research will come up with a cure for their children. If that is case, the pro-research scientists should retract what they have said and show us how such a cure is to be achieved.
Another cruel deceit that is being perpetrated is that those who oppose embryo research would ban IVF treatment. We never have and never will.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My wife and I had a serious fertility problem, as a result of which we went through a successful IVF process. There is considerable evidence that the IVF success rate does not depend on destructive experimentation. Statistics in this country and evidence from IVF clinics in South Australia, where experimentation is illegal, point to the fact that it is the number of times that the procedure has been carried out that is the key factor determining the success rate, not destructive experimentation.

Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That demonstrates something else: that there is no


unanimity of opinion among infertile couples as to whether the research is acceptable, or even among the handicapped or the parents of the handicapped.
I now refer to the ethical issues dominating the debate and the use of language. We are told that a child of 22 weeks' gestation fighting for life in an incubator with all the resources of medical science being poured in to save it is a baby, but a child of identical age and development in the womb where we cannot see it is a foetus. The difference between what we call a baby and what we call a foetus is that we can see one and we cannot see the other, and if we inflicted pain on one, we could see it.
The same use of language is applied to the earliest stages of human existence. How right my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was when he said that not once in all the Warnock deliberations was the word "pre-embryo" mentioned. It is a sanitising term to cover up what we are doing.
When the Bill was debated in the other place, we heard endless terms to describe human life—two-cell zygote, a conceptus. The Archbishop of York chose the term conceptus because, he said, it is buried in the obscurity of the Latin language. The Archbishop of York is rather sexist—why not a concepta? Perhaps we can get over the problem in the traditional way favoured by many Opposition Members—we could call it a conceptus person because it is a person.
While we are on the subject of personhood, the Archbishop said that all life was a continuous process from fertilisation to death and that we are all processes. It makes one wonder what the advent lessons must be like in York minster. Perhaps they would go something like this: "And Mary, when the angel had departed from her, found she was with process, and her cousin said unto her, 'Lo, the process in my womb leaped with joy when I heard thy voice". Are we now getting down to such silly language?
If we take the Archbishop at face value and agree that we are all processes and that there is no single voice as to when life starts, we cannot say that personhood occurs here or the soul enters there. We cannot say any of those things if life is a process. Is not the best reason of all for not interfering at any point the fact that we do not know when personhood begins? Did not the Archbishop score a spectacular own goal?
Another misuse of language was exemplified in the speech about handicap by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). Of course all parents want their children to be born without a handicap, but there is all the difference in the world between saying that we want children to be born without handicap and that we do not want the handicapped child to be born. What most distresses me is that, when we were considering the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and at any stage during the passage of the Bill that we are discussing, a handicapped person could switch on the radio or television and hear politicians glibly discussing whether he had the right to be born.
We would not insult any racial or religious group in that way, so how dare we treat handicapped people as a race apart and single them out for insult? The most profoundly difficult experience that I had during the passage of the Bill unsuccessfully introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was explaining to handicapped

people why we had made an exemption for severe handicap and why we had agreed that they should be treated as second-class citizens. We shall go through that again when we table our abortion amendments, because, to meet the fears of many right hon. and hon. Members, we have agreed to exempt handicap from any restrictions.
I congratulate the Government on their great courage in at long last providing an opportunity to resolve the abortion issue. We are talking about life before birth, life up to 14 days and after 14 days. It is a ludicrous law that says that personhood occurs at 14 days and human life needs protection, but that from the 15th day to the 28th week abortion is perfectly all right. We need to examine that muddled law, and when, as the Government have courageously decided, the House debates abortion, we shall at long last apply the will of the majority of the House, which has never yet been defeated but which has frequently been frustrated.
We all heard what the hon. Member for Barking said. She did not say that she hoped that the abortion clauses would be defeated—she knows that they will not be defeated, so she said that she hoped that they would not be taken. That is the last dying hope of a minority that has persistently misused the tactics and the procedures of the House to frustrate the majority.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) referred to the other place and the concept of a process. There were some outside the House who wondered whether the experiments on primates to find out the validity of life and humanity might begin in the upper House.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said that there should not be the same protection for a human being who has been born as for one in the womb. In that maligned book, the Old Testament, where we are told the laws are cruel, there is clear protection for the unborn; rather interestingly it is given in the context of the restrictive law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We heard those arguments deployed tonight and it is amazing how we run away from what will happen.
The pre-embryo or conceptus who has been discovered to have a defective gene would automatically be disposed of because there is no way that it can be brought to term. Therefore, I join in giving the Bill a guarded welcome. Using the ecclesiastical terminology that has already occurred in the debate, like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. I am not too sure how we are going to separate the bad parts from the good ones without making it a completely different Bill. I pledge my support for those who seek to improve the Bill by providing guidelines for the nation.
It is good that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland, as it allows representatives from Northern Ireland to take a full part in debating it. I believe that I reflect a general view throughout Northern Ireland, irrespective of political parties and religious persuasion. We ask for the legislation to show respect for life.
I take up a point which may have been missed. We have heard quotations from scientific bodies that support the concept of research and experimentation. Recently I spoke to a doctor who told me about an experiment in psychology which may be being conducted on us. It is


certainly applied in places such as Oxford street by street traders who are accompanied by people who put up their hands to buy straight away so that the others who are gathered round will also buy. The people around do not realise that the trader is with an accomplice. If they see a policeman they disappear; if no policeman turns up, the accomplice returns the goods that he has bought for the salesman to peddle again.
That approach is used to convince people to do something that they would not do normally. Let us take the example of a product being sold. I have been told of people being shown a film in which someone appeared wearing a blue sweater. At the end of the film they were asked, "What colour sweater was the person wearing?" A number of people who were secretly involved said, "It was red." When the first half dozen people said "Red", the others became doubtful and said "Red" although they had perceived it as blue. I am not trying to make a political point by using those two colours.
Over the past months, the media have been bombarding the nation and the House with facts and statistics, but rarely have they featured a scientist, a politician or a disabled person to convince the House and the nation of a view which, in their heart of hearts, they do not wish us to hold.
In that context, I was interested by some figures from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal Society. The statistics from those two bodies on the incidence of disorders in newborn babies is about the same. The Royal Society claims that it is one in 20 and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that it is 5 per cent. That works out at 50 per 1,000, which all hon. Members will agree is a horrifying figure. When I checked the figures I discovered that both organisations were exaggerating. One must ask why. I believe that it is to hype the argument in favour of passing the Bill and to allow experimentation.
It is said that research will help to prevent genetic disorders, but the figures given by the Royal Society and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are for congenital diseases. If one examines their figures carefully, one discovers that they are exaggerated I have them here, and Professor Hubert Campbell, who for many years was the medical statistician representing England and Wales at the World Health Organisation, has checked them for me. Rather than the 50 per cent. suggested by those two bodies, 15 per cent., and at the outside 20 per cent., of deaths are due to genetic diseases; that figure conforms with a report by the Royal College of Physicians, which shows that of children born with congenital abnormalities 15 to 20 per cent. suffer from genetic disorders. There are difficulties in obtaining accurate figures because a high percentage of those deaths are from cardiovascular problems.
Why should the professional bodies exaggerate the figures? I am not suggesting that they have a vested financial interest, because many of them are genuinely concerned and want to do the best for patients and others. Many years ago I asked about experimentation and the sale of organs, but time and again I received bland answers from Departments saying that they had no statistics and that such things were not going on. One answer that I received was, "Customs and Excise do not come across this because they are not asked to look for it."
I stand where I stood with my right hon. Friend Enoch Powell, not against experimentation but for the experiments being on an embryo for a particular person's own good and that there should not be blanket research.
Ian Donald drew attention to the fact that, like the rest of us, embryos develop differently. It might take between 13 and 16 days for an embryo to develop, but if there is such confusion at that stage, how do we differentiate? We all know that, once the Bill is enacted, its supporters will press for an extension of the time limit.

Mr. Robert Key: The speeches that have most impressed me so far were those born of a little humility. That includes the fine and balanced speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, on which I congratulate him.
For others, the debate has been about the nature of certainty. As a teacher, I suggested to my pupils that if someone said, "with respect", they meant exactly the opposite; that if someone said, "Of course I am not prejudiced, but", it was usually a preface to a whopping lump of dogma; and that, similarly, those who proclaimed what the truth is mean that they believe it to be so. People on both sides of this issue feel passionately about it. I hope that, as the Bill progresses through the House, both sides will maintain respect.
I declare my interest and credentials for taking part in the debate and for supporting the Government's proposals. First, I am the parent of three strapping children. The most important thing to me is my family life. Our first son was born with lethal disorders, the result of a chromosome abnormality. He lived for only a few days, but long enough to be loved and to be baptised. I owe it to Jamie to support this legislation, from which much good will come.
My second credential is as a Christian. It is quite clear that there is no definitive Christian viewpoint or imperative in this debate. It is a matter of difficult personal judgment. I sought the advice of the Bishop of Salisbury, and I am grateful to him for it. Without claiming that he supports what I believe to be right, he told me that, if he were faced with voting on this issue, the arguments that would weigh most strongly with him were those on embryo selection. He points out that, when nature spontaneously aborts a good many embryos, it is hard to believe that to do so deliberately for good reason is contrary to God's mind.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Key: I will not stop: I have only 10 minutes to make my speech.
We cannot duck the issue that some people feel that we are saying that it would be better if disabled people had not been born. The Archdeacon of Sarum advises me that the argument is a deliberate muddying of the waters. He says that one could equally say that any attempt to discourage illegitimacy is an insult to those born out of wedlock. The fact is that, if we could launch a life with or without handicaps, it seems morally better to choose the latter. The Bishop of Salisbury said to me: "Many parents must pray for a disease-free child. When we are given the power to bring that about ourselves, what does it say about our prayer if we refuse to use that power?"


Clearly, rejection of an embryo earlier than 14 days is preferable to aborting a foetus much later on. If uncontrolled, that could be used to justify abortion and embryo selection, which, as the Bishop of Salisbury told me, was one mark of Nazism and would be profoundly repugnant to Christian tradition. But the Bill is all about control, and it recognises that such activities are unacceptable.
After much thought and inquiry, I have reached the conclusion that it is not possible for me to accept that human life begins at the moment of conception—for two reasons. First, I regard the egg and the sperm as human and part of the continuum of creation. Individual lives begin with chemistry and reach their fulfilment in mystery. My second reason is the chemistry of the matter. If we believe in life starting at an instant called conception, we ignore man's growing understanding of molecular biology and genetics and all that goes on not only at a human biological level but at a sub-species level in the building blocks of life.
I shall return to that, but my third credential is that I am a member of the Medical Research Council. I am not a scientist but am one of the lay members whose job is to ensure that the feet of the distinguished scientists are in occasional contact with the ground. The MRC's reasons for suppporting research on pre-implementation embryos are well rehearsed: to improve in vitro fertilisation techniques; to help reduce the number of abortions in those who are at risk of passing on serious genetic diseases to children; to help us understand and prevent miscarriages; and to assist in the development of simpler, safer and more effective contraception. I have listened to the contrary arguments, and will continue to do so, but I remain unconvinced by them.
The Bill is also about freedom of conscience. It does not seek to impose sanctions on those who think that research is wrong. It goes to great lengths to define consent. As Lord Hailsham put it in another place, those who would impose an absolute prohibition should ask themselves, what kind of right, in a free and liberal democracy, do they think that they have to say no to a highly responsible group of people working for the benefit of humanity and subject to the authority of Parliament? Scientists and clinicians are not pro-death—nor am I, nor is any one who supports the Bill. Who hijacked this term "pro-life", anyway? I take the view that we cannot undo enlightenment.
I have a word of warning for the scientific community: they do not realise how far ahead they are of the rest of us. There is so much that we do not know about the human brain and problems such as schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease and slow viruses such as bovine spongiform ecephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There is so much that we are beginning to understand, and the rate of that understanding is increasing rapidly. The scientists must not leave us behind. There is a massive job of education to be done.
I have referred to the amazing growth of understanding of the molecular basis of life. We must come to terms with the inevitable scientific progress. There is no absolute right or absolute wrong—we must make a judgment. I urge the House to judge that we should not turn our backs on scientists in Britain. Make no mistake—the work will go

on in other countries, with or without us, and it will be without the controls that Parliament is seeking to exercise in this country. If we wash our hands of this issue, we will make it harder next time we are asked to make judgments about scientific issues, and they will probably be concerned with genetics. Personally, the more I see and understand the way that science serves mankind, the stronger grows my Christian faith.
Salisbury has sent Members of Parliament to Westminster since 1275—we take a long-term view of things. When Parliaments or rulers have sought to impose bans on science or to legislate against progress, they have always come to grief. To vote against the Bill tonight would be to marginalise Parliament, at a time when we have never needed Parliament more. We would trumpet our timidity and lack of vision with a penny whistle. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I have good news for Members—I do not intend to go into the technicalities of pre-implantation embryos or pro-life. I want to talk about the issues as I see them and, equally important, as my constituents see them.
When the Bill was first discussed, I made a conscious decision as a Member of Parliament because of my experience when I became a Member in 1987 when the abortion issue was raised. I knew from that experience how contentious it was. Some politicians may tend to go to ground when such issues are discussed, but I decided to take this one up front. I called two special three-hour surgeries in my constituency on two consecutive days to take representations from my constituents. It was an enjoyable and enlightening experience.
I met 54 constituents who had come to lobby me either for or against. Many Christian groups on both sides of the argument lobbied me. We must put something to rest: one is not a better Christian if one is for or against the Bill. No one should be able to kidnap the issue and say that he is a better Christian because he takes a particular point of view. I am envious of the faith of other Christians. My experience in life leads me to believe that a person should be judged on his Christianity by the way in which he lives his life, cares for his neighbour and behaves towards his fellow men and women. That is a better yardstick by which to judge whether someone is a Christian.
I should like to thank many of the individuals who came to see me. I had the excellent experience of meeting the local branch of a national Christian group, CARE—Christian Action Research and Education. Through those surgeries, I was able to develop a relationship with the groups that I had not hitherto been able to develop. Although we did not necessarily agree on the issues that we debated, we had mutual respect and there was understanding of each side of the argument. I hope that other hon. Members will have that experience. Politicians should not drop this contentious issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) sought support from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) pointed out that there would be a free vote, and so it should be. I have been active in Labour politics for a


considerable number of years—sometimes it seems longer. This has always been an issue of personal conscience and I have always believed that that is what it should be.
When I am asked to vote against embryo research, I must take on board some of the issues that are put to me to consider—for example, the sanctity of life, the rights of a 14-day embryo and morality. Like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) I tend to duck when I hear people starting from a moral standpoint, because usually what follows is not as moral as they would have us believe. We have been told that the legislation will lead to uncontrolled research. References have been made to the Nazis during the war and their horrific activities, but that tends to overstate the case.
We hear also about strong Christian faith. I shall tell the House of an experience that I had in my constituency involving an elder of a local church, who said, "Please, Mr. Hood, support the Bill. I have a daughter whose ovaries will not develop because of a disease. Her only chance of a normal life is to benefit from this research by having an implant." He then said something that has struck me ever since: "I am a Christian. My faith in God is such that if He does not mean it to happen, it will not and if He does mean it to happen, it will." I mulled over those words by a chap whom one would walk past in the street. Such was his Christian faith that he could make that strong commitment.
Within minutes, a minister in a church in my constituency came to me and said, "Mr. Hood, I am a Christian and you will expect me to be against the Bill." I said that I did not expect him to be against the Bill because he was a Christian and told him of my experience a few minutes earlier with the elder of a different church. The minister was dumbstuck, as I had been, when I threw it back at him. I told him about the elder whose faith in God was such that he believed that, if something was not meant to happen, it would not happen. The minister was taken aback. I am sure that what I told him did not influence his view, but it was well worth saying nevertheless.
I do not think that there are any easy options. There is no ducking the issue of abortion, either, and I hope that I shall not try. I must be objective. I must accept that I live not in the world as we all want it to be but in the real world. I hear people talking about what we should do to help the handicapped, the disadvantaged and the disabled, and such objectives are perfectly legitimate and honourable. But whether their chance is one in 10 or one in 100, what should we say to an infertile couple when they come to us and say, "Mr. Hood, please give us a chance to enjoy the happiness and warmth that a child in our family will give us"? When given the choice, I do not have the courage to deny them that chance.

Dame Jill Knight: In case the impression begins to take hold in this debate that if one has had the misfortune to have a blighted child and to have lost it, one must be in favour of the Bill, I will mention at the outset that I had two such children and lost two such children, but that I remain strongly opposed to experimentation on human beings at any stage in their development. That is certainly not because I have no feelings or understanding for the couple desperate to have a child. I have every sympathy for couples who find themselves in that position.
I would argue, however, that experimentation is certainly not the only way to find out about infertility. It is still most questionable whether experimentation on human embyros can tell us anything at all about infertility. How can an embyro that is totally unrelated to a man and a women tell us anything at all about why that man and that woman cannot conceive? I find that an odd proposition. I suppose that someone will say, "Ah, but it could be the couple's embyro." I do not think that it can, because if they have produced an embyro, they are not infertile. The argument does not stand up.
I warmly commend the idea of all possible help being given to couples who desperately want a child, but if IVF is not very successful and can lead to ovarian cysts, answers should be sought where they can be found and that is certainly not by experimentation on unborn babies at the first stage of development. Surely it is true, and all of us must recognise, that the only way in which people can explain experimentation away or accept it is by saying, "We are talking about the first stages of development."
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the curate's egg. There is also such a thing as the housemaid's baby, which was "only a small one". The argument that is being used in this case is similar. People say, "It is only a small embryo, in the first stage of development, so let us not worry about it." Nevertheless, it is a serious proposition that we should use a human being for experimentation at any stage in his or her development. I hope that the House will accept that. Then does not the House at least have the duty to be sure that embryo experimentation is necessary? If it is a serious matter, let us a least have proof that it is necessary.
A great deal of information has been sent to hon. Members from doctors on both sides of the argument. If 99 per cent. of the doctors had said: "We must do this: it is the only way," the House might have been in a different position, but that has not happened. The medical profession seems to me to be divided more or less equally. One erudite professor wrote to me:
The claims that experimentation on human embryos will contribute importantly to a knowledge of human reproduction, the prevention of infertility and congenital handicap are false.
Certainly there are things that we need to know about preventable infertility. There is such a thing as a blocked tube, for instance. A woman may suffer from pelvic inflammatory disease, and there are many other complaints that may be to blame, but none of their causes can be discovered by experimentation on the embryo. So many of the arguments of would-be experimenters collapse when we put them under the microscope. They say that an embryo is not a human being at that stage in its development. If it is not a human being, how can it give answers to problems facing the human race? Either it is a human being or it is not. They say that embryo experimentation is the only way forward, but genetic research has been going on for years without using embryos and it will continue whether we give or withhold permission to use them.
The would-be experimenters argue that nature wastes so many embryos; it is always flinging them around like bits of confetti, so what does it matter? But nature wastes a whole lot: it wastes children, teenagers and more mature people. Thousands and thousands of people all over the world die prematurely for one reason or another. If it is argued that because nature wastes, we are entitled to use


what it wastes for experimentation, why should we stop at embryos? If we are dealing with what nature wastes, there is a lot more going than an embryo or two here or there. If one believes that because nature, fate or God wastes human beings by bringing them an early death, we can put them to use for experimentation, we are on a very slippery slope indeed.
If Parliament gives its blessing to experiments up to 14 days, the scientists will not stop there. Already many authorities, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists through to geneticists such as Professor Robert Edwards, Professor Williamson, and the Council for Science and Society, have said that they would not be satisfied with 14 days. Once the principle is established, embryos will continue to be used, because it is perfectly obvious that the older an unborn child is, the more useful it will be to the scientists.
If the principle is breached, there is no escaping the consequences. Once one accepts that a human being, at whatever stage in its development, can be used for scientific experiment, the rubicon has been crossed and there is no going back. It will be 20 days, then 50 days, and then six months. Then we shall include wasted born babies who are mentally or physically handicapped, who will be considered no use and a drag on society. Did not someone once call them unproductive mouths? Once we say that it is perfectly feasible to allow human beings to finish up on a slab, being experimented on by scientists, there is no end to it.
How will the present proposed limit of 14 days be enforced? Will an inspector go into a laboratory and say, "Stop. Wait a minute. You have had 13 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes. You will never finish that in one minute, so you must not do it." How do we seriously suggest that such a rule will be policed? How will we ensure that nowhere in any laboratory does experimentation take place beyond 14 days?
Many medical men are against what is proposed. Many handicapped people—never mind the parents of handicapped children—are against it. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) advocated how sad it is to be handicapped and that it is much better that such people are not born. I cannot support that.

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: I have only about a minute left.

Mr. Wigley: I bet.

Dame Jill Knight: Well, the hon. Gentleman had better be quick.

Mr. Wigley: I did not say what the hon. Lady said I said. She should know that I love my boys with their handicap and all. No one can take that away from me. She should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that.

Dame Jill Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that I said that. I did not. I said that his words amounted to him saying how much better it would be to find a handicapped foetus at an early stage and get rid of it. That is exactly what he said. That does not mean to say that he does not love his children. It means that he thinks that it is much better to get rid of a handicapped foetus. I cannot agree with that.
Even Church leaders have spoken out against that, although the Church is so divided these days that half the churchmen believe one thing and half the other. Perhaps we should not take too much notice of what the Church says. In the end, it comes down to an ethical and moral belief that human life is sacred, that none of us has the right to destroy a human being and that permitting experiments on embryos that are judged unwanted is the severest threat to human life and values since the passage of the Abortion Act 1967.

8 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. There have been many fine and eloquent contributions today, based on science and morality, and I thought that perhaps I should keep away from those subjects because I am not as competent as others to deal with them.
My attitude to the Bill is probably simplistic, as it is based on human dignity. That is a simple phrase, but it is difficult to define. Where the Bill enhances the prospects for human dignity, I support it. However, where it denigrates human dignity, I withdraw my support from it.
The Bill has two elements—fertilisation and experiments on embryos. I put those elements to the test of human dignity, and I found that one element complemented it and the other was diametrically opposed to it. When we talk about human dignity, we are talking about human life and all its attributes. I do not care whether that human life is 80 years old, eight years old, or eight days old. It is still human life with the dignity that I want to attribute to all human life.
I support with great compassion the in vitro fertilisation of any childless couple because that makes a contribution to human dignity—the dignity of the parents and no doubt of the child which will be loved all the more for its rarity and specialness. However, when considering the part of the Bill dealing with embryology and experimentation, it does not matter whether that life is 80 years, eight years or eight days old. The same human dignity and the same precious concept applies that I was taught to apply to my fellow man and to my neighbour, whatever age he may be. According to that principle, I am totally opposed to experimentation.
Although I am opposed to that experimentation, I have the greatest sympathy for many of the arguments in its favour, which the exponents hope in some way will expedite the day when mental and physical disability will be wiped out. We all look forward to that day and we all support that concept. However, we are concerned about the way in which we achieve that end. That is the only point on which we will differ.
In all the scientific arguments that have been made this afternoon for experimentation and the analysis of the human embryo, no one has said that research should not take place. We are saying that research into the human embryo is not the only way forward, and that it is one of the most dangerous ways forward in terms of human dignity.
Many benefits can be obtained from other methods of research, as is clear from much of the propaganda that has been sent to hon. Members from both sides of the argument. In those circumstances, we must tread warily. Having listened to the arguments today, I cast my mind back to the debates on abortion. I appreciate that we have


been exhorted not to confuse the two issues, but how can I not do so? On the one hand, I am told that we must stop experiments at 14 days, because there is something sancrosanct about that embryo. However, we can kill that embryo months later. There is no logic, morality or science in that argument. There is certainly no human dignity there either.
On that basis, I ask hon. Members to consider the pro-life argument—well, pro-life may not be the right phrase; perhaps pro-human dignity would be better. We must learn from history, whether we like it or not. On every occasion in history when human dignity was denied, catastrophe followed for the society concerned.
This afternoon, people have been accused of being emotive in their approach to the subject. An emotive phrase continues to occure to me. There is a daily massacre of the innocents in this country. If I were to say the holy innocents, I would be accused of being religious so I left out the adjective. However, I believe that there is a total contradiction between killing a babe in the mother's womb at 22 weeks and doing all in one's power to preserve it in an incubator at the same age. That is the contradiction in the scientific approach.
We all know that once the floodgates are opened—I do not mean that in an emotive way, because there will not be a sudden gushing outwards—there will be a steady trickle from 14 days to 15, to 16 and to 20. There will be no way of controlling it, and in that sense I oppose completely the idea of the so-called committee of control. I support those hon. Members who have said that the committee of control must be directly and immediately accountable to the representatives of the people of this country in this House and not by way of a self-regulating quango that can distance itself and its responsibility from the Minister, who must presumably answer to the House.
I am not speaking today for the sake of the record. I am representing my constituents, in the hope of persuading and converting, and in the hope of having a logical argument so that people will accept that the Bill is not the way forward to prevent mental or physical disability or to prevent infertility. All the arguments this afternoon have been negative. They have sought to increase the efficiency of abortion and to terminate unwanted and disabled embryos. They were all negative, not positive. I hope that I have represented as fairly as I can the people who elected me to this place. I certainly represent the broad viewpont of my party.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: About 14 months have passed since I spoke in a similar debate on this subject. In the meantime, work has obviously continued in in vitro fertilisation and embryology. I get the impression from today's debate that, whatever our different viewpoints and whatever the charm of having less legislation in this place, we want to make a non-partisan decision.
As a physician and a barrister, I have tried to assess the implications of an issue that is daunting in all respects. We all know the strength of feeling in the country, and it is all the more so in a constituency such as mine in Wimbledon, where the Christian tradition is very much alive and the attendance at churches of all denominations is unusually

and agreeably high. I have thus consulted widely on an ecumenical basis, and a useful exchange of views has resulted.
I am well aware that, when one talks to people who are much better qualified than oneself on these profound theological and ethical issues, one feels the humbler for that. Having never worked directly in embryology, I have also consulted medical colleagues and have visited several units in which such work has been carried out under the guidelines set by the voluntary licensing authority, now the interim licensing authority. I pay tribute to a uniform standard of excellence and responsibility that reflects the very best of medical tradition in this country. As far as I know—it is confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—following the Warnock report there have been no breaches of the rules, which have been followed voluntarily.
That leads to the question whether we need the legislation. A senior Roman Catholic in my constituency, who certainly would not agree with many of my views, said:
I am not necessarily against research as such, but the public needs reassurance.
I cannot improve on those wise words. The need for reassurance, both generally and to prevent such practices that have been mentioned today, such as cloning, genetic manipulation or the inappropriate use of spare embryos, becomes all the more acute as science continues to push the frontiers of knowledge.
To me, such advances are progress, but they have obviously caused unease historically, particularly when work has been carried out in connection with human life. Indeed, those who are most uneasy—and I do not belittle their feelings—tend to use the word "experimentation" rather than the neutral word "research", which is less emotive. The law must recognise changed circumstances and get the right balance.
What are the two principal issues that we are debating? The first is assistance to sub-fertile couples to have children. Surely few would object to medical science offering help to the 10 per cent. or so couples falling within that category. Although the success rate has improved markedly, there is still an enormous way to go, and such advances will be halted if the House so decides. I accept that current procedures could continue even if research could not, but why reduce the hopes of such couples for their future happiness?
It was put to me by a priest in my constituency that couples do not necessarily have the right to have children. I have a certain sympathy with that viewpoint. The assumption that we have rights in all sorts of matters has become subject to justifiable criticism. Certainly, the 25 per cent. of parents in 1988—the figures were published last week—who had children outside marriage, compared with the 10 per cent. 10 years earlier, had not exercised their responsibilities. However, the vast majority of sub-fertile couples could not, by a process of self-selection monitored by the medical profession, be better motivated and more worthy of any help that medical science can offer.
The second issue is the early detection of profound mental and physical handicaps in children. I use the word "detection" rather than "prevention". First, I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) that there is no cure as yet—and I emphasis the word "yet." Secondly, I would not presume to judge the happiness that is given and received by parents


of handicapped children. We are all aware of the amazing achievements of many handicapped children against all the odds. I am not an advocate of eugenics per se. Parents should be consulted if they so wish, and thereafter it is their choice whether to seek further information and to decide whether a pregnancy should continue.
I cannot help wondering how many parents would decide to proceed if they knew that their child would be born handicapped. Some diagnoses can now be made as early as within 48 hours of fertilisation, and assessment can continue while the fertilised ovum is frozen. Placental biopsies and amniocenteses which are more traumatic and are carried out late in pregnnancy, will decrease in importance, and the incidence of late abortions, at whatever date the House subsequently decides, will decrease, to universal relief. Further safeguards in ILA guidelines have reduced the incidence of multiple births, which clearly threaten a safe birth by the mother and also the viability of under-sized babies.
I refer now to a question that I cannot answer but which all hon. Members will have to attempt to answer, as some have already tried: when does life start? On one side of the spectrum there are those who say that, in itself, the sperm or ovum has life. More commonly, it is asserted that the moment of fertilisation is the start of life. Even the definition of fertilisation is inexact. Is it the time of the penetration of the ovum by the sperm or, to be pedantic, is it to be the two-cell stage when the two genetic materials mix properly for the first time?
Other faiths, in my constituency and elsewhere, date life from the time of implantation. I was going to venture into a concept that I am not even certain is produced in the English dictionary—ensoulment. I shall desist from discussing that matter tonight, but I leave the House with the thought that identical twins presumably have different souls. We do not know when souls enter identical twins —it is a complex theory—but it can logically be argued that one cannot have a soul until the 14th day, which is the day on which the first neurological tissue is laid down. [Interruption.] I recognise that I shall not carry the House with me.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend identical twins? I have.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I suggest that they do not have identical souls.
The House should bear it in mind that no fertilised egg has yet been cultured in vitro beyond nine days. Whether or not the House likes it—I suspect that many people do not—there is also a long legal precedent for productions of conception receiving relative degrees of protection. That is a long-established principle of British law.
I have sought to show that there are few if any absolutes in this contentious issue. If reassurance is in the air, Warnock provides it. We cannot turn the clock back, but we could stop it and, by stopping it, stop the legitimate aspirations of those couples who wish to develop their own happiness within the context of the family. With further research into sub-fertility—male or female—and genetic disorders, many more people will benefit from advances made as costs decrease and accessibility, which at the moment is very limited, increases. I recognise that there

will be wide differences in hon. Members' standpoints, but I trust that we will respect each others views and will vote to replace semantics and scruples with science and sense.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to detain the House for too long. I welcome the Bill and the debate, which is about a fundamental issue. For many years we have debated the science of embryology and how it can or cannot help people. For most of us, science in this century, and even in this decade, has moved ahead by leaps and bounds. It cannot be right that science should move on in industry and not in other aspects of our lives. As we know that science can both create and destroy, we must ensure at all times that it is regulated and controlled.
The Bill is about very fundamental issues: at stake is the right to make decisions about parenthood. I believe that it is only through controlled pre-embryo research that choices will be extended to those who are infertile or who carry a gene disorder.
We must all know or have met a constituent or have a colleague, friend or family member whose life has been scarred because they are unable to have children. We may also know those who have been fortunate enough to have been the recipient of treatment that has resulted in a much-wanted child: treatment that would never have been available to them without pre-embryo research. Some hon. Members have questioned whether that has been of benefit to people. I find that incredible. Since the first birth as a result of in vitro fertilisation—Louise Brown in Oldham in 1978—thousands of children have been born to people in this and many other countries who would otherwise never have had the opportunity of parenthood.
But in vitro fertilisation is still successful in only 10 to 15 per cent. of treatments. For the sake of the estimated 275,000 sufferers of infertility who could benefit from IVF, it is vital that further research is conducted that will improve the present programmes. There are many known causes of infertility in men and women, and there are many that are at present unknown. Only 10 per cent. of infertile men can currently be helped either by surgery or hormone treatment, yet infertility is as common in men as in women. This is not just a women's issue, although women Members will have both opened and closed the debate for the Opposition.
One in five pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Although we cannot stop miscarriages occurring, controlled science has meant that miscarriages are better understood. However, without research little hope of a solution to these problems can be offered. Among the many organisations that have sent us their views on this Bill I, like all hon. Members, have received correspondence from the National Association for the Childless. The testimony of such people is one of the most powerful reasons to support licensed experimentation on pre-embryos.
However, it is not only the infertile who will benefit from the continuation of the research. Although we cannot say that we have had great success in sorting out the problems of hereditary genetic disorders in families in the past five years, I am sure that in time it will be possible to screeen pre-embryos from those who are at risk of passing on a genetic disease. It will enable those people to establish pregnancies that are not affected by the disease, rather than have to make the agonising decision of whether to have an abortion after weeks of pregnancy.


The case for this research to continue was made to me most effectively by a couple in my constituency whom I have contacted again and who have allowed me to share with the House their experience. They wrote:
We are the parents of two sufferers of Retinitis Pigmentosa, one of over 4,000 disorders that are genetically transmitted. RP is a disease of the retina of the eye. It can, in the worst cases lead to total loss of sight in youth and is the second greatest cause of blindness in the country. 25,000 families are affected. There is no treatment, no cure and no way of preventing its transmission from one generation to another …
Scientists have recently begun to identify some of the genes that carry RP. In a year or two it should be possible for parents who are known to be at risk of having an affected child to fertilise embryos in vitro, test for the genetic defect, and have inserted in to the mother's womb only a defect-free embryo. This procedure would provide, for couples who want to use it, a means of ensuring that they can have children in the certainty that they will not risk passing on a hereditary disease, a dread which haunts everybody who suffers from one.
That couple then comment specifically on a clause on which hon. Members will have to take a decision on the Floor of the House if the rest of the business goes through. They state:
The version of the clause that would ban all research into pre-embryos would render impossible the kind of procedure described above. It would be a terrible blow to those of us who have come to hope that it might be feasible to end the transmission of the condition that so malignly affects us. Can it conceivably be right for the nation, as represented in Parliament, to deprive so many of its citizens of one of the main avenues of progress on a matter so fundamental
I said at the beginning of my speech that the legislation involves fundamental issues. I am a proud father of three healthy children and, since the Bill was given its Second Reading in another place, I have become a grandfather. I deeply believe that it would be wrong to deny people the right to have children. We need controlled science to help in that.

Mr. W. Benyon: I, too, welcome the Bill. The last time such legislation was discussed in the House, I urged my hon. Friend's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Services, to speed up such legislation. The Government have been as good as their word.
One reason why I feel so strongly about the Bill is that the present position is untenable. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) was right to draw attention to that in his intervention in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I also welcome the timetable arrangements which, I hope, we shall pass at the end of the debate. I wish that such arrangements were in force for many other pieces of legislation.
Try as I might, I cannot find any logical alternative to conception being the start of life. I have a great pile of literature on my desk from organisations and people who are trying to prove the contrary. As a drowning man clings to a log of wood when he is in the water, I stick to that definition because I cannot find any other reasonable criteria with which to deal with this important Bill. If one departs from that idea, where does one end up? What is the difference in law, in logic, in morality or in science between 14 days, 20, 30 or 40 days? My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) clearly identified the fact

that on the one hand it is said that the experimentation must stop at 14 days, whereas at 15 days—or after that —we are quite prepared to abort the foetus.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is no longer in his place, because I wish to take issue with the advice that he received from some clerics in the Salisbury diocese. Despite what was said, Christianity has never been in any doubt about the fact that human life starts with conception and ends with death. Some scientists and doctors try to chip away at each end, but it is Parliament's duty to hold the ring and to ensure that we arrive at the right answer.
I read the reports of the debates in the other place carefully. Some of their Lordships seemed to be saying that they were not in favour of experimentation, but that they felt that they could not take that view into law. In a democracy, that seems a counsel of despair. All social legislation has involved great controversy, but we have had to consider and decide those measures with our votes. This is no exception.
Crucial to our discussion on this part of the Bill is the question whether, by banning research, we are stopping or delaying progress with either IVF or the elimination of genetic diseases. I am sure that many hon. Members will make up their minds on that issue alone, and that it will be a decisive factor.
The debate is far too short to go deeply into the arguments that have been placed before us by various people in the medical and scientific professions. One thing is clear. Even in the relatively short time since Warnock, we have far greater knowledge than that Committee had. Things are moving fast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Goodson-Wickes) said. The harsh light of publicity has shone on the matter since Warnock. As a result, we have been shown research methods and findings which were not available then.
I am not against research. All that I am against is research that destroys the embryo, as the Father of the House said so eloquently earlier. The problem with IVF is not fertilisation but the implantation of the fertilised embryo. There is no need to use embryos for research into this. We also know that genetic abornamalities are evident in the sperm or in the ovum. Therefore, there is no need to use the live embryo for such research. It can be carried out without doing that. Therefore, we must think carefully about these points and consider the technical evidence that has been put before the House.
George Orwell talked about 1984. I submit to the House that if we follow the example of the other place, we shall be only six years late.

Mr. David Alton: To reinforce what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) has just said. If the people who pitted themselves against slavery in this Parliament 200 years ago had listened to the utilitarians of their day and accepted that it was merely a matter of private morality, the slavery laws would still be on the statute book. I do not accept that this is merely a matter of private morality. It is an issue on which everyone in the Chamber has a right to a view. It goes to the very heart of how we perceive humanity.
Lady Warnock has always emphasised the distinction between fact and opinion. I agree with her. In 1985 at


Newcastle, she said that only a fool would now say that life does not begin at conception. Her committee, which drew up the Warnock report, said:
Once the process has begun, there is no particular part of the development process which is more important than another … However, we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken in order to allay public anxiety.
Lady Warnock and her committee hit on the aptly named primitive streak. As the hon. Member for Maidstone (Ms. Widdecombe) said earlier, she never once used the term pre-embryo. That was a later invention. Surely a debate which may make lawful destructive experiments on human embryos requires the clearest of language. The word "embryo" comes from the Greek and is defined as the rudimentary, initial or earliest stage of development. The word "foetus" means little one. Those code words from ancient language hide the truth that our generation seeks to deny.
Our opponents in the debate say that the embryo is just a collection of cells. That may be, but it is still a unique human being. One could say that every human being, of whatever age or size, is just a collection of cells. Just because an embryo is small, it does not mean that it is morally inferior. Others say that it is merely potential life. Not true. It is human life with the potential, in favourable circumstances, to develop fully to human maturity. In many ways, the 14-day argument concedes that. After all, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, it must be 14 days after something. Fertilisation is the only event to which everyone of us here can point and say, "That is when I began and I have been me ever since."
The appearance of the primitive streak is a landmark, not a watershed. It is an incident in a life that has already begun. Fertilisation determines the colour of our eyes and the colour of our skin, our sex and our uniqueness—not 14 days. The conclusions that we reach about the tiny, vulnerable, powerless human embryo will later shape how we regard the status of every individual and how we perceive his or her human rights. It will determine our attitude towards disabled people, the senile, the incurably sick and the terminally ill.
This supreme human rights issue is of the highest moral significance. Those who justify destructive experiments use the classic utilitarian argument that means justify ends, that benefits outweigh costs and that it is my right to choose, even to take another human life, because it is all for the common good. We heard the word "enlightenment" earlier. Dr. Michael Hall, who was quoted in The Guardian in 1987, said on the subject of scientists' intentions in research and IVF:
It would mean we could manipulate at will the genetic pool, produce super-races, modify ethnic traits, excise socially unacceptable habits—in fact produce people to order.
If they had the unfettered right, unhampered and unhindered by Parliament, some of our scientists would pursue nothing less than that. Their thinking is summed up by the Oxford philosopher, Jonathon Glover, who said:
For a utilitarian killing is in no way intrinsically wrong, but is only wrong because of its implications for happiness and misery.
Scientists say, "Allow us to experiment and there will be no more handicap and no more infertility." The supporters of experimentation have been constantly challenged, and I challenge the Secretary of State again today, to name a

single human disease in which embryo research has led to significant cures or advances in treatment. Lord Walton of Detchant, the scientist—who favours experimentation—admitted in the debate in another place:
I agree that as yet there are none.
Cures are not achieved. What is achieved is detection. One hon. Member described it as culling the handicapped. Lord Rea also told the House of Lords:
We should also consider society's need to reduce by every means possible the proportion of handicapped children."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1990, c. 958.]
The House should note the phraseology. He referred to the elimination not merely of handicap, but of handicapped children, by every means possible.
Care and kill can never be used as synonyms. Quality controls and perfection tests on life are repugnant. They are defeatist. There are alternatives. Professor Hymie Gordon, Professor Jerome Lejeune, Professor John Marshall and Professor Ron Taylor, whom I mentioned earlier in an intervention, are four of the leading academics in the field. Professor Gordon said:
Everything we need to learn can be learnt by studying genetic diseases in non-human primates and other animals.
Much valuable work is also being done in treating genetic conditions. That does not involve embryos; it involves research on blood or other tissues taken from adult patients. In the longer term there is also the prospect of gene therapy. I support strongly non-lifetaking research and unconditional help for disabled people and their families.
As the child enters the valley of decision, it is worth pondering for a moment where our failure to follow the maker's instructions have taken us. Within the past two weeks, there have been two graphic illustrations of our anti-life ethics. In my city of Liverpool, a court came to a verdict after a drunken driver mowed down an eight-month pregnant mum on a pedestrian crossing. The baby died, but the court was told that the unborn child did not count. The driver was given a three-month sentence and a £1 fine.
There was also the case of the King's college baby, stabbed to death through the wall of the womb with potassium chloride at 27 and a half weeks gestation. One of a pair of twins, the baby had a chromosomal defect that would have left it impotent. A letter in The Lancet suggested that such selective reduction should be called pregnancy enhancement as a more endearing description of what we authorise under British law.
We were told 23 years ago that abortion rights would not lead to abortion on demand. Today, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion—3 million since 1967. It is a cruel paradox that this Bill says that personhood begins at 14 days and after that it would be a crime to violate the embryo. However, it will remain perfectly legal to kill a foetus in an abortion for the next 26 weeks. It will also be legal deliberately to create so-called spare human embryos, merely for the purpose of experimentation. If we treated foxes, seals or beagles in that way, there would be a public outcry.
Like the abortion laws, there will be no end to what we are asked to sanction. Like the abortion laws, once the principle has been agreed, it will be difficult to turn back. The popular perception is that, once Parliament has legalised something, it must be right.
Our legislation allows abortions later than anywhere else in the world. Last year, women from 100 countries —from Mongolia to South Africa—came to the United


Kingdom for late abortions. Denmark, Ireland, parts of Australia, Norway, Portugal, and soon West Germany all forbid experiments in their countries, and the House must ask itself whether it really wants Britain to be the centre of that trade.
Concern for the human embryo is part of a seamless garment. That garment is woven together by a common thread. Here is a concern for life, justice, care and worth. When one considers the degradation of life today, destruction of family life, collapse of communities and of good neighbourliness, contamination and plunder of creation, and indifference to the world's hungry and poor, one can see how that seamless garment has become a tatter of rags. That is what happens when society ceases to believe that each person is unique, sculpted in the image of his maker, and not to be treated as expendable raw material.
The Bill represents a crossroads every bit as important as that which we faced in 1967, and concerns an issue of fundamental human rights. I hope that the House agrees that to embark on the use of the tiniest human being as the subject of destructive experimentation is a dangerous departure from civilised ways. I say in conclusion to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who said "Knock and the door will be opened":
In as much as ye have done it to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it to me.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate the Government on an excellent Bill, on a subject that is not easy to tackle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the other Ministers concerned have done well. The Bill had a good passage through the other place. I congratulate their Lordships and the Archbishop of York on their debate on clause 11 in particular, and on sending the Bill to this House in a form that we would like to consider.
We should congratulate also this country's doctors and scientists on giving us a world lead through a combination of excellence in medical science and in moral science. Philosophers such as the Reverend Professor Dunstan, a former Queen's chaplain, deserves great credit for his work in sustaining the philosophy behind the work of Edwards and Steptoe.
I refer briefly to the subject of handicaps, in which I have a personal interest as the adoptive parent of a handicapped child. Research offers the chance of a breakthrough in helping parents who risk producing children with genetic disorders to avoid doing so. I ask any right hon. or hon. Member who is doubtful about how to vote, to vote in favour of the Bill, for the hope that such research offers prospective parents. Handicaps afflict too many people in our country, and we do not look after them properly.
I remind the House that there are 5,500 handicapped children in institutional care because their parents are unable to look after them. I know of families in my constituency who make desperate attempts to look after their children, but who find it difficult to do so. We should not seek to stop research that can offer families the chance of healthy children.
Handicapped children are often sent from pillar to post and lead a miserable life not only because of their handicap but on account of the breakdown in the family relationship that stems from it. Handicapped children surely deserve

the love and care of a family even more than healthy children. I call upon right hon. and hon. Members who oppose research to do more to provide family homes for handicapped children.
I opposed Enoch Powell's Bill, and have played my part in the five-year campaign against the thinking behind his Bill. I also helped to form the campaign group Progress, which has helped to counter propaganda against the Bill and has been well supported by medical charities. The work done by the Medical Research Council and the Association of Medical Research Charities also illustrates the broad base of scientific support for the Bill. Only a small minority of scientists are opposed to the research in question. I look forward to the debate on clause 11, and to the vote on it, and I hope that I may play a part in its Committee stage.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I address my remarks to members of my own party, not so much to other right hon. and hon. Members. I do not intend to pronounce on questions of morality, ethics, or pre-embryo research. Instead, I refer to the position taken generally by people on the left, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Community. I do so because I believe that the debate has to some extent been hijacked by a permissive lobby which, unfortunately, often sways many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, without them giving due consideration to the implications of the issues involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) was right to spell out Labour party policy.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was conference policy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was a decision of the Labour party conference that the opportunities for women to have the right to choose should be maximised. That policy affects this debate as much as that on abortion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking made it clear that Labour Members are free to vote as they wish. When they do so, I know that they will take into account the decision taken at Labour's national conference, where millions of votes were cast in favour of a policy that we must acknowledge.
Many members of the public following this debate, and perhaps reading of it in the press, might be led to believe that Labour is dominated by people who say that it is in favour of embryo research and of a fairly permissive regime in respect of abortion. That is not the case. The Labour party's membership holds varied views on such matters. It has within it the Labour Life Group, a national organisation affiliated to the Labour party with branches throughout the United Kingdom. It holds an annual meeting, which was staged last year on 13 June at the Conway hall in London, and holds meetings at Labour's national conference. I draw attention to that organisation to demonstrate that the debate in the Labour party is far wider than it might appear at first glimpse.
Two interesting votes took place last year in the European Parliament. A vote on 16 March concerned a report on artificial in vivo and in vitro fertilisation. It emphasised the dignity of every human being from the moment of conception, the right of the child to life, and in particular the right of a child to a family. In that context, family meant the genetic mother and the genetic father.


The creation of surplus embryos during in vitro fertilisation should, according to one of the report's recommendations, be prohibited. A second report dealt with the same subject from a different viewpoint.
That report was lost by only three votes—at least in respect of socialists in the European Parliament. Discarding the Conservative vote, voting among socialist Members of that Parliament was 39 votes against and 36 in favour. In terms of the number of people in the European left who cast their votes in the European Parliament, there was a clear division, with almost half the Labour group, the socialist group of the European Parliament, voting in favour of the recommendations.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Did the vote take place on the floor of the Parliament or in a Labour committee? If that vote took place during a plenary session, the figures are extraordinary.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not sure about that, but I understand that a total of 150 votes were cast. Given that the hon. Lady was once a Member of the European Parliament, she will be aware of the significance of my remarks.
It is also worth considering what has happened in other European Parliaments. I understand that socialists in Norway voted for a total prohibition and that socialists in Denmark voted for a moratorium. Socialists in France are so divided that the Bill currently before the French Parliament may have to be abandoned, while socialists in Germany overwhelmingly voted to ban research on embryos.
When we debate such matters in the United Kingdom, we should do so in the context of what is happening in the rest of Europe. It is important to remember the division among socialists in the European Parliament and the socialist groups in various Parliaments throughout the Community, which form a strong part of those Parliaments.
My hon. Friends should also note the stance of radical socialist feminists. They represent a huge international movement, which has been completely ignored by the British Labour party in the context of this debate. We should consider what those feminists have said. In July 1985 an important meeting took place in Vellinge in Sweden, at which 16 countries were represented. An organisation called Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering, FINRRAGE, was formed as a result of that meeting. That organisation has thousands of members from around 35 countries.
Before anyone shouts that it must be a Catholic organisation, I must tell the House that that is not so. It is a pro-abortion organisation, but it is opposed to research into the embryo. There is no contradiction in terms. When I asked members of that organisation about that, they explained the nature of the consistency in their argument.
As a result of the 1985 conference, FINRRAGE passed a resolution to resist the development and application globally of the technologies derived from embryo research. FINRRAGE has claimed that those technologies destroy women's physical integrity, exploit women's procreativity, undermine women's struggle for control of reproduction and are generally harmful to the interests of all women.
A document produced by that organisation for its 1989 conference states:
The position of FINRRAGE is unique. The challenge in responding to these technologies from a women-centred perspective is to reorient the ethical and political discussion so that it takes account of what these technologies do to women, the primary subjects of medical and scientific experimentation in the area of new technologies. None of the dominating 'official' discussions have taken these issues into account.
That organisation is complaining that the international discussion that is taking place about such research completely disregards and dismisses the contribution that radical women can make.
The second international FINRRAGE conference took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh in March 1989. There are now women in 35 countries on all continents participating in the network. The FINRRAGE document produced for that conference states:
This conference focused on issues affecting women from the North, South, East and West and how we can work together to resist reproductive and genetic engineering. The Comilla Declaration adopted by the conference provides a basis for our work worldwide.
Those women, who regard themselves as "critical feminists," are exploring three areas—the link between genetic engineering and reproductive technologies, the different meaning of the new productive technologies for Third and First-world women and what the application of such reproductive and genetic engineering will mean for women in the future, as well as now.
That radical women's organisation is based in all the major countries. It meets regularly and it has branches in various parts of the United Kingdom. It is highly organised in western Europe, and its representatives believe that the debate on embryo research disregards their position. We cannot disregard the views of those women. They form part of the European left and they have a voice to be heard.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I should like to begin by quoting from a document published earlier in the session by the pro-research organisation, Progress, which is entitled "Freedom to Choose". The quotation has already been used in the debate, but it is worth repeating; those advocating human embryo research state:
Research using human pre-embryos is not, and never has been, concerned with treatment of genetic disorders, or chromosomal abnormalities.
Those who pretend that that is not the case are playing coldly, cruelly and callously upon the quite understandable fears, hopes and frustrations of those who suffer from genetic disease and those who care for and love them.
What some scientists are seeking is the right to perform destructive research upon perfectly normal, healthy human embryos, for the sole purpose of perfecting techniques for seeking out and destroying other handicapped embryos.
The ban on destructive human embryo research that we propose would not prevent a woman with a history of genetic disease from declining to have implanted within her an embryo created though the in vitro fertilisation programme that had been found to be defective or deformed. To that extent, those who mistakenly believe that such pre-implantation screening holds any real hope of eliminating handicap would still be able to follow the


process. What they would not be able to do is to destroy other perfectly healthy embryos in developing new techniques for destroying handicapped ones.
It should be remembered, incidently, that the Royal College of Physicians had some wise words in its report entitled "Prenatal Diagnosis and Screening" published in September 1989. It said:
Most infants with congenital malformations and chromosomal disorders are born to health young women with no previously identifiable risk factors. It seems unlikely that these sporadic disorders can be prevented.
A ban on human embryo research would not prevent improvements and developments in the IVF programme. Many of us who support that ban are not opposed to IVF. A friend of mine is currently undergoing IVF and I naturally very much hope that she and her husband will be able to conceive and to bring forth a healthy baby.
I realise only too well that this is often the last hope for many couples, and I would not wish to see the IVF programme stopped. We also understand the problems faced by infertile couples and believe in research on the causes of infertility and to help in the treatment of those who are infertile. I would not like anyone to run away with the idea that we do not have compassion for those who cannot conceive easily.
We need research into dead embryos which fail to implant. As another colleague said, no living embryo will show why a particular embryo cannot implant. Specialists need to garner the dead embryos and experiment on them to find out why they have not implanted and to carry out other research for the woman.
We must ask, "What is the purpose of research?" I have come to the conclusion that it is not to prevent handicap. The only way in which research can prevent handicap is by seeking out and killing the handicapped embryo. We also know that there is a hidden agenda behind that research and those experiments—to develop new abortifacients and contraceptives for the Third world. We all know that a vast amount of money is involved in developing those new drugs, and we must face that fact.
Even as we speak, progress is being made without the use of human embryo experimentation. I shall mention two of the exciting developments in molecular biology, which have arisen in the short time since the Government introduced the Bill to Parliament. The first one involves muscular dystrophy. The Times of 11 January stated that scientists in Oxford had identified a minigene in muscular dystrophy which prevented serious disability and
could be used in the future for treating severe cases of muscular dystrophy by gene therapy.
The second example involved cystic fibrosis, in which I have an interest because one of my godsons has the condition. The identification and isolation of the cystic fibrosis gene allows detailed study of the function of the protein involved. That will lead to specific pharmacological and gene therapy for cystic fibrosis. In The New England Journal of Medicine of 1 February this year, the rhetorical question is posed:
Moreover if the current studies of the molecular pathophysiology of cystic fibrosis yield, as anticipated, novel therapies that extent the quality and span of life for those with cystic fibrosis to the age of 40 or 50 years from the current median of 20 years, will elective abortion of an affected fetus be justified?
Genuine help for society will come from advances in the treatment of those disorders, not in the destruction of the few which can be identified at the embryonic stage.
In my comments, I have dealt almost exclusively with the new, bankrupt arguments peddled by those who wish, for reasons of their own, to promote research on human embryos as the panacea for all the ills in our society. They are perpetrating a cruel hoax, which I hope the House will reject.
In future debates, I intend to table a number of amendments to the Bill to seek to curb the worst abuses of the artificial insemination by donor services. That matter was raised by many peers during recent debates in the other place. The Government's response was to include in the Bill a new subsection in clause 13 which states:
A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.
I welcome the new wording, which acknowledges the welfare of children as a priority, but it does not go far enough and is far too weak and woolly. I strongly believe that, in the best interests of the child born, treatment should be given only to married couples or to a man and woman living together in a stable relationship. The child so born should have the right to know its genetic background at the age of 18, and there should be an automatic right for the child to know how it was conceived. There is nothing to be ashamed of, so I would have thought that society would not want to hide the way in which the child was conceived.
There should also be safeguards on the number of donated eggs or sperm, to cut down on unwitting incest. Most importantly, the name of the social or non-genetic father of the child should not appear on the birth certificate under the heading of "father", but the phrase "by donation" should be used. It is quite wrong for a new life to begin with a lie that will last the length of that life. We should surely encourage honesty and truth and acknowledge that new techniques are being used to help parenthood, that those new techniques should be recognised in law, and that the children resulting from them should have their rights protected by the law.
It is essential that the Secretary of State be responsible to the House and the people of this country for the work of the licensing authority. I served on the Standing Committee examining the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, which was an excellent piece of legislation. It makes no sense to treat human beings worse than we would treat animals. It is vital that that concept be reintroduced during subsequent stages of the Bill, which we shall debate with a great deal of interest.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The House will wish to know that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. Many hon. Members who have sat here most of the day still want to speak, so I appeal for short speeches to continue.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: This Bill is entitled the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, thus encompassing a huge, delicate and controversial topic. The House would have enough on its plate dealing with only that subject.
I want to mention some aspects that will get in the way of proper consideration of the embryology part of the Bill. The long title of the Bill says that the Act will


make provision in connection with human embryos and any subsequent development of such embryos",
which is a strange and rather sweeping statement. We are all, after all, the subsequent development of embryos. I wondered how far this matter might go. I realised that if certain hon. Members were determined to extend the scope of the Bill to take account of the interests of the foetus, I should be prepared to enter into an argument about that.
However, we now learn that new clauses relating only to the termination of pregnancy will be accepted. If we are to deal with foetuses in the Bill, why cannot we deal with, for example, the proper nourishment of expectant mothers, so that their foetuses can develop properly? Why cannot we deal with the fact that many pregnant women are so poor that they cannot eat properly, thereby prejudicing the chances of their foetuses? Why cannot we deal with the fact that young girls have particular problems that lead to damage to the development of the foetus, resulting in a much higher incidence of perinatal mortality?
Why cannot I table amendments to deal with social security matters to put those problems right? If we are concerned about the subsequent development of the foetus, I should have the right to do that. Why allow the Bill to be hijacked by those whose only interest in the foetus is abortion?

Mrs. Ann Winterton: rose—

Mrs. Wise: No explanation has reached my ears during this debate, and I have listened to all of it. I strongly disapprove of the fact that the interests of pregnant women and their foetuses are being excluded from a Bill that is supposed to be being extended to deal with foetuses. Certain hon. Members are interested only in abortion, not in the unborn child or its development after birth. If the House were so interested in the welfare of children, many women would not feel the desperation that drives them to seek abortions.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) did the House a service in drawing attention to the fact that many handicapped children have miserable lives that could be made less miserable if there were any intention on the part of the House or society to do so. I should have welcomed a non-partisan approach to such questions and problems. I do not welcome a myopic concentration on the subject of abortion.
We have been told about the importance of language, and I agree that it is important. I have listened intently while we were accused by implication of being pro-slavery. It has been said that the likes of us would not have wanted to see an end to the slave trade. We have been accused of being in favour of experiments on little children, and a picture has been painted of the massacre of the innocents taking place in our country. It follows that, if there is a massacre of innocents, people are massacring them. Sometimes I do not feel very optimistic when I look around our society, but I am not so pessimistic as to think that I am surrounded by people who massacre innocents. I am often surrounded by women who have enormous problems and desperate feelings about them. I should like to see the House reduce the causes of that desperation.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) told us that even the moment of fertilisation is somewhat moveable. Leaving that aside, we have been told

that from the moment of fertilisation there is a human being and not a potential human being. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) specifically objects to that phrase. He says that, from the moment of fertilisation, there is a human being with potential.
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. It is a potential human being and, if the circumstances are right, the fertilised egg may develop into a human being. It has been said that many do not and that, if nature if so profligate, perhaps it is not so sinful to agree that it would be proper for good reason to use those embryos to improve the lives of children who will be born. I do not object to that reasonable proposition. The embryo is not a human being. In an ectopic pregnancy the embryo cannot develop into a human being, but it is a fertilised egg, an embryo.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: I shall not give way in a 10-minute speech. An ectopic pregnancy cannot result in the development of a baby.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It could kill the mother.

Mrs. Wise: Exactly, so it is not in itself a human being, cannot be regarded as such, and cannot develop into a human being.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) should respect the rules of the House and keep her silence unless she is on her feet.
Those who say that they have an absolute concept of life do not in practice follow their own advice.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.

Mrs. Wise: No hon. Member, with hand on heart, could say that he or she has a total respect for life, in all circumstances—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: —otherwise there would be no vote for capital punishment, no money would be spent by our society on weapons of war—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: —there would be no export of armaments from this country, which encourages people to think that they should earn their living by exporting armaments. They are instruments of death—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: —yet some hon. Members say that they accept the absolute concept of life from the moment of conception. There has been a good deal of hypocrisy in this debate. There have been some good, thoughtful speeches, but I side with those who say—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: —that hon. Members ought to show some humility. I hope that hon. Members will exercise their conscience in the Division Lobbies, but I hope, too, that they will remember that they represent people with an equal right to exercise their own judgment and conscience.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Rubbish.

Mrs. Wise: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Lancaster calls out, "Rubbish."

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I ask the hon. Lady to give me a chance by giving way.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to harass another hon. Member? It is not often that I crave the protection of the Chair, but in this case I think that that protection has been noticeably missing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is extremely short. I thought that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was perfectly capable of protecting herself; otherwise, I should have intervened earlier.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) keeps referring to me, yet she will not give way when I rise courteously to my feet to ask a question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Points of order are prolonging the length of this speech.

Mrs. Wise: I regret that my speech may inadvertently have been lengthened by the disorderly conduct of the hon. Member for Lancaster.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No. The hon. Lady would not give way.

Mrs. Wise: I am pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you considered me to be capable of taking care of myself. I shall always endeavour to do so. I should be sorry if my point about the importance of our conscience, and of the conscience of those whom we represent, was overlooked because some hon. Members believe that only they are the guardians of morality and conscience.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: This has been a long debate. Strong feelings have been expressed —perhaps a little more strongly in the last few moments. Our constituents also have strong feelings about the subject. We, as Members of Parliament, listen to the arguments, but many people misunderstand the subject.
I have always been totally against embryo research at any stage. I, together with many people, wish the time limit for abortions to be reduced. This is an ideal measure to discuss the matter. Many people are not against abortion per se. I am not against abortion. Nevertheless, the time at which some abortions take place has become a national scandal. When we debated the matter some time ago I said that the figures suggested that we were becoming the foetel dustbin of Europe. The problem is growing worse, not better.
We need legislation and I hope that the House, in its wisdom, will decide not to allow research on human embryos. If it does, we shall be on a slippery slope that will take us to where the scientists think we should stop. Scientists will wish to push back the frontiers of science if they can decide whether they should stop. The House should not give scientists the opportunity to do that because we will be saying in future, "God help us. Why on earth did Parliament allow that to happen?"
Many people oppose the use of embryos for research purposes on moral, Christian and other grounds. Many of us reached that view after considerable thought and after many discussions with people on both sides of the debate. We all have sympathy for people who cannot have children. We are not legislating that they should not be given the opportunity, but we should also consider that no person has a God-given right to expect to have a child, although we hope that medical technology can help many couples and make them into a complete family, if that is what they wish.
Many people in Britain with handicapped children do not want future generations to gain from experiments on human embryos, and they have made that clear to me in many discussions. They have a right to that view and we should take it into account.
It would be difficult to allow research on human embryos up to some arbitary cut-off point, as such legislation would be difficult to enforce. I had hoped to discuss various parts of the Bill that I consider would lead to a free-for-all, but time is limited. I hope that we will return to the issue later.
How many researchers would jeopardise future funding or professional reputations which could be established by one or two extra days' experimentation on a human embryo? Who will say, "The 14 days are up; no more experiments"? Who will have the knowledge to take such a decision? All embryos do not look the same. As some may look 12, 13, 16 or 18 days old at 14 days, it will be very difficult for any licensing body to police the legislation.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to reach a rational view about the overall impact of the legislation when so much of it will be dealt with by statutory instruments. I urge Ministers to ensure that the House has plenty of time to discuss those regulations and statutory instruments, and that they will not be whistled through late on Thursday nights when some Members may not be present. We need to discuss those regulations extremely carefully.
There is much concern about the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is proposed that the majority of the research licensing committee be made up of researchers. That would be rather like employing child molesters in a nursery school. We do not want such legislation being sanctioned by the House. It is such an important issue that we may not get the opportunity to discuss it in full again for perhaps another decade or possibly two, so we must ensure that when the Bill finally reaches the statute book after completing its Committee stage, we have in place exactly what right hon. and hon. Members believe should be there. There must be no comeback other than on the regulations laid down by the Government.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will understand that some of us were pained and distressed by his speech. He talked about the eugenics of a brave new world. What can that mean other than that cross-species fertilisation, as allowed in the Bill, will lead, he thinks, to the creation of human and animal hybrids? Therefore, I should like to ask some direct questions of the Department and the Minister.
Will the Minister confirm that fusion between human sperm and the egg of an animal is allowed under the Bill in only specific and tightly controlled circumstances? Will she confirm that that involves the procedure normally known as the "hamster" test, whereby human sperm is mixed with specially prepared hamster eggs to test the sperm's ability to fuse with an egg membrane? Will she confirm that the coating of the hamster's egg is dissolved chemically to allow the penetration of sperms from another species? Will she confirm that, without the removal of that coating, fusion with human sperms would be impossible?
After three hours' incubation, the eggs are removed and inspected for evidence of fusion between the sperm and the egg plasma membrane. The hamster eggs, which in any event are non-viable, are then discarded. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), with his membership of the Medical Research Council, knows how critical a factual statement is on those points.
The hamster test is used in the development of male contraceptive agents and in the study of chromosomal abnormalities of human spermatozoa. Will the Minister confirm that there is absolutely no possibility of hybridisation between human and hamster cells?
The genetic constitution of the cells is completely incompatible, and even if the period of incubation were extended the hamster eggs would degenerate spontaneously because they have no developmental potential following fusion with human sperm. Without its outer covering, would not the egg of any species, fertilised or not, quickly lose its viability? All sorts of fanciful stories have been put around about hybridisation. The sooner they are out of the way the better.
I turn to the more common argument that has been used in the debate, and it was put most strongly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). What is the point of pre-embryo research, which has not produced a cure or treatment for genetic disease or chromosomal abnormality?
There is some confusion about the aims and potential of pre-embryo research. It has never been claimed by serious people in Edinburgh or anywhere else that this research is carried out that it will produce a cure for genetic disease or that it will be used as a general method of screening genetic diseases. Rather, it has been claimed that it will be able to prevent the passing on of such disease for couples who are at substantial risk.
Once a couple have borne a child with a genetic disease, or are known to carry a deleterious gene that is highly likely to be passed on to their offspring, they may opt in the next pregnancy for the genetic testing of the conceptus antenatally. At present, that is done by taking some of the waters that surround the foetus at about 16 weeks of pregnancy or by taking a small sample of the placenta at about 10 weeks.
In either case, the diagnosis of an affected pregnancy leaves the woman with the distressing choice of whether to proceed to an abortion.
I shall stick scrupulously to the time available to me. For 23 years, I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist. My colleagues will understand that, as such, I am a receptacle for many letters. There have been pained letters from people who strongly feel that embryo research should not go ahead, but there have also been many long, serious, pained letters from those who are carrying out the research and who feel that they should have a voice in the House of Commons debate and that they are helping humankind by the work that they do, often in extremely distressing circumstances.
There is emotion on both sides of the argument. Some of us strongly believe that the researchers are doing their work in good faith and using their skills for the benefit of mankind and that they should have a voice in future debates.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Two strongly held opposing views have been put forward in the debate, which has ranged across moral, ethical, conscience and science questions. It has not been a debate between those who have a moral conscience and strongly held moral convictions and those who do not or, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said, a debate between moralists and utilitarians—rather, it has been a debate between those whose moral convictions would have them ban research and those, like me, whose moral convictions lead us to support the continuation of research. It is not a debate between those who have a conscience and those who do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) put this well in her speech —it is a debate between Members whose conscience would lead them to different conclusions.

Mr. Alton: That is not quite what I said. I said that there were utilitarians on one side of the argument and, on the other, those who reject the utilitarian point of view. I do not think that there is a monopoly on morality, but we have to have at the centre of our debate a concern for life. Does the hon. Lady accept that those of us who support research do so based on the precondition that that research does not lead to experiments that destroy life?

Ms. Harman: Those of us who support embryo research also believe that we support life. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, perhaps I may develop my arguments, which show why my moral convictions and conscience lead me to support embryo research up to 14 days.
There are deeply held views on both sides of the argument, which have sprung from a decision to protect and enhance human life and a sense of religious conviction. There are many different views on the beginning of life, and it was helpful to hear from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who gave the most lucid explanation of the pre-embryo stage of development. His words echoed those of the Archbishop of York in another place who, in effect, said that there was no doubt of the wonder of the moral world and the religious significance of personhood, but that the transitions on the way to it were not clear, clean-cut and decisive, despite the tremendous significance that some people would give to the moment of


fertilisation. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) pointed out that the precise moment of fertilisation was being brought in question the more we know about that process.
I support the view that there is a valid place for research but that special safeguards are needed. Fourteen days appears to represent in the process of development an identifiable biological transition. It is right that there should be no research beyond 14 days. It is easy for those of us who do not need the research perhaps to overlook or undervalue its benefits. We should listen with humility to those men and women whom this research is designed to help.
Those of us who have never struggled with the misery of infertility, those of us who have not had repeated miscarriages and those of us who are blessed with healthy children are indeed fortunate. But there are thousands of couples in Britain who are not so fortunate. We must listen to their voices when they ask us to allow the research to go ahead.
One couple in eight suffers from infertility. To some, that figure is unbelievably high but it is the interim licensing authority's own estimate. The figure is higher than we realise because of the sense of shame and the stigma that still attach to infertility. Men feel ashamed to admit that they cannot make their wives pregnant and feel that it somehow reflects on their manhood. There are women who believe that they are not real women if they cannot do what other women seem to take so easily for granted.
Whatever the causes of infertility, its result is plain: thousands of people's lives are blighted by their inability to have a child. It does not matter how happy someone's marriage or how satisfying his or her work is; infertility can leave a terrible gap in the lives of people who want a family.
The shadow of infertility has reached down through the centuries, but medical research, including embryo research, is beginning to lift that shadow little by little and now the diagnosis of infertility can be the beginning and not just the end of hope. Microsurgery to clear blocked tubes, drug treatment to encourage ovulation, conception outside the womb by in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination—whether by donor or by husband—have led to many thousands of babies being born.
But although we have made tremendous strides, there is still a long way to go and many scientists believe that we can improve the success rate of IVF. At present, the treatment succeeds with only between 10 and 15 per cent. of couples who try it. Let us speak plainly about this: we cannot realistically increase the success rate of IVF without further research. Those who would ban embryo research say that they want IVF to continue. The only reason why we know how to perform IVF is that we have undertaken research and it would be wrong to end that research before it makes a breakthrough.

Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: I know what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will say. He is fortunate because his IVF treatment was successful. Let me remind him, however, that 90 per cent. of the couples who go through the treatment that he and his wife went through do not succeed. I hope that he will vote with me to give them the chance that he has had.

Mr. Brazier: The evidence based on the voluntary licensing authority's figures is that the success factor in IVF is not the presence of destructive embryo experimentation but the number of IVF procedures that the clinic has carried out. That is why the large, long-established clinics are the successful ones. Moreover, the second most successful clinic in Australia is in an area where experimentation is illegal.

Ms. Harman: I have to accept the view of the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Medical Research Council and the Royal Society, which take a different view. They feel that the success rate of IVF will increase, but only with further embryo research.
At least 275,000 couples in the United Kingdom could benefit from IVF, so an increase in the success rate is important. I pay tribute to the important work of the assisted conception unit at King's College hospital in my constituency. Not only does the research need to improve: we need increased services. It is wrong that if one suffers from infertility that is amenable to treatment, one's ability to get that treatment will depend on whether one has the money to pay for it in the private sector or whether by chance one lives in one of the few places where it is available on the National Health Service. We need more services as well as more research.
Many couples are never able to find out why they cannot have a baby. About 40,000 suffer from unexplained infertility. Further research is needed for them, too. Perhaps the people to whom we should be listening most carefully are people such as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who have had a child with a genetic abnormality. Every year in the United Kingdom, 14,000 babies are born with genetic defects passed on by their parents. Some of those defects are so serious that there is no hope for the child, who suffers terribly and dies after a few weeks or months.
I want to refer to a specific case. When Clare was born she seemed perfectly normal, but a small area of peeling skin developed into blistering and bleeding. She was diagnosed as having epidermolysis bullosa, which is a genetic disease that results in blistering and sheering of the skin if it is so much as touched. The blistering destroys the outer skin layers and can affect the body linings, leaving the sufferer unable to eat. Clare suffered raw sores from the middle of her back to the top of her leg so she could lie only on her front. Her parents continually bathed her and changed her dressings, but they could not cuddle her. Just to touch her made her skin peel.
Clare suffered terrible pain and her short life ended at the age of 83 days. Parents like Clare's face a terrible choice once they discover that they carry a genetic abnormality. For most it is unthinkable to have another child only to stand by helplessly while it suffers or dies. The alternative is to have ante-natal screening and to face the difficult decision of aborting a much-wanted pregnancy.
Embryo research offers those parents the prospect of testing the embryo outside the womb and of re-implanting into the mother only an embryo that is clear of the gene that she or her husband carries. No one is arguing that screening should be compulsory. It would be up to the parents. However, it is clear that people whose children have died as a result of genetic defects want the chance of a healthy baby. If embryo research was banned, they would be denied that choice.


To lose a baby through miscarriage is terrible. About 75,000 women in the United Kingdom this year will miscarry. However, many suffer the misery of repeated miscarriage. Further research offers them the hope of understanding the cause of repeated miscarriage and a chance to treat it.
Embryo research also offers the prospect of developing better contraception. People have talked about the importance of devoloping contraception because of the Third world. However, women in this country will testify that the search for safe and effective contraception is far from won.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that there is a lamentably high level of abortions in his city. He is right. There are 200,000 unplanned and regretted pregnancies in this country every year. Contraception is still difficult, and threatens the health of many women. The possibility of developing a contraceptive vaccine that imitates the natural condition of infertility would give much hope to women in the Third world as well as to women in this country.
Of course embryo research must be carefully monitored and controlled. The Bill would outlaw research that was carried out simply to satisfy scientific curiosity. It would outlaw research unless it was carried out under licences granted, renewed and reviewed by the statutory licensing authority. Under the Bill, experiments to cross animal cells with human cells or cloning would be illegal. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right. The allegations about the thin end of the wedge have no foundation. We are talking about legislation and making law. The Bill would give a criminal limit of 14 days. The idea of slipping past 14 days is sloppy talk and not worthy of this House.
The continuation of embryo research is a matter of conscience. Of course there are two sides to every moral question. However, my conscience makes me listen to the voices of people who cannot have children and to the voices of those who have watched their children die. I hope that the House will vote for the continuation of embryo research as a chance to end their suffering.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The debate has been characterised by authoritative speeches about subjects on which there are strong feelings in the House. We have had a range of speeches in which hon. Members have spoken from individual experience and according to their strongly held views about the ethical, scientific and medical issues involved. Many hon. Members have referred to the great number of briefings that they have received from outside organisations. We know quite well that all who are involved in this vital subject are deeply concerned to ensure that careful thought is given to the proposals for legislation. There is overwhelming agreement that the time has come for a strong statutory framework to control these important matters.
It is invidious to pick out particular speeches from the many that we have heard, but I must refer to the speech by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who spoke with great feeling about the respect to be afforded the embryo; the

speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke with her customary fluency and passion about abortion matters; and the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who spoke about her fear that 14 days might be the thin end of the wedge.
On the other side of the argument, we heard the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the moving speech by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who spoke with great dignity born of personal experience, and the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). Many of the issues that they raised were mentioned in another place, and I am sure that we shall return to them when clause 11 and schedule 2 are debated in Committee. At this stage, I should simply say that they are complex issues, and it is important that we give them our considered, thoughtful and clear deliberation.
No one has questioned the profound significance of these matters. I urge hon. Members to study the debates on human embryo research in another place which attracted an especially high level of argument and clarity and were informed by mutual understanding of deeply felt and sincerely held views. I hope that we can rise to the challenge in this House when the time comes. These matters are of the greatest significance, and the Government will achieve one of their main objectives if the legislation that we enact is framed with as much sensitivity to opposing views as is practicable. When the time comes for hon. Members to cast their votes on amendments, they must decide each for himself or herself, in as calm and dispassionate a way as possible, what the right course should be.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said about human embryo research, as there will be ample opportunity to do so when clause 11 and schedule 2 are debated—if the House agrees to the splitting and timetable motions in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House. However, it would be appropriate for me to say a word or two about abortion, as all hon. Members must now be expecting that subject to be debated.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the subject of embryo research, will the Minister confirm that the answer to all the questions that I have asked her is yes?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am extremely happy to confirm the answer in the affirmative to all the important points made by the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with knowledge and expertise on scientific matters.

Miss Widdecombe: No, he does not.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone always has an authoritative comment on all subjects that are debated in the House. I hope that she may be able to join us in Standing Committee so that we may benefit from her further advice and guidance on this important subject.
My hon. Friend recognised that we were anticipating that abortion would come within the scope of the Bill. As on previous occasions when abortion has been debated in the House, hon. Members have expressed strong, deeply held and widely differing views on the matter of


conscience. Some hon. Members have already made up their minds on this question, but many of us are undecided and will want to weigh up the conflicting views before we, too, reach a decision. If, as seems likely, abortion amendments are debated on the Floor of the House, each hon. Member will have to decide for him or herself how he or she should vote.
The House needs no reminder from me that this Government, like predecessor Governments of both main political parties, are neutral on the ethical question of abortion. Like individual hon. Members, members of the Government hold divergent views on the matter. The Government can therefore have no collective view of the merits of any abortion issues that the House may decide to debate.
One of the main responsibilities of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which will be set up by the Bill, will be the task of licensing centres that undertake such activities. It might be helpful if I take this opportunity of reminding the House of the range of infertility treatments that the Bill seeks to regulate. They include in vitro fertilisation, commonly known as IVF; donor insemination, often referred to as artificial insemination by donor or AID; egg donation; and embryo donation.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes were also concerned about whether GIFT—gamete intrafertilisation transfer—should also be regulated by the Bill. Two principles govern policy in the Bill about the treatments that are to be licensed. The first is that they involve donated gametes or embryos and the second is that they involve the creation of an embryo outside the body. Those principles have been developed because in each case there are questions about the embryo's legal status or statutory controls about what should happen to it. Neither principle applies in the case of GIFT.
The Government are firmly committed to setting up this statutory authority. It is thanks to the interim licensing authority, led by its chairman, Dame Mary Donaldson, that although there has been no formal legislative control, since 1985 that task has been carried out in a most competent way.
But the Government consider that the time is now right to fill this legislative vacuum and put this control on a statutory basis—to give the authority the clearer powers currently lacking, and perhaps, but more importantly, to provide the public with the certainty and confidence which only statutory control can provide in this very fast-changing and technically innovative field of science and medicine. I believe that that meets the agreement of the whole House.
We have chosen to set up an independent statutory authority to remove the day-to-day detailed consideration of these very sensitive matters from the political arena. I know that this decision, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is a disappointment to some who would have preferred direct ministerial control of the licensing system. This decision was, however, taken only after the most careful consideration. During our consultations before the publication of the 1987 White Paper, a number of options were put forward. The support for an independent body was overwhelming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked about how the controls would be enforced and how the system would be policed. The Bill gives the new authority

detailed licensing powers over the centres that it licences —to make directions about general and specific matters and to give guidance to centres through its code of practice. Where necessary, it has the powers to revoke, suspend or vary licences. Its staff will be required to inspect the premises at least annually and, should any significant breach of the licensing conditions be discovered, the authority will have the power to take quick and effective action against the centre. In addition, clause 37 contains an armoury of penalties if offences are committed.

Sir Bernard Braine: How often will the House have the opportunity of surveying or debating the activities of that body?

Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is aware that an amendment was accepted in another place that envisaged that the new authority should report to the Secretary of State not every other year, but every year. That report will, of course, be available for the scrutiny of hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) questioned the use of the licence fee in this area. Increasingly, the standard practice is for licensing systems to be largely self-financing. There are many examples of that, including the registration of nursing homes, planning applications and licences under the Medicines Act 1971. The portion of the centre's licence fee directly attributable to the patient's treatment is likely to be small and should be regarded as part of the running costs of the centre.
The Bill places on the authority a duty to maintain a code of practice giving guidance to centres about the proper conduct of activities licensed under the Bill. As I have said, that guidance will be published. I have no doubt that the authority will be sensitive to public and parliamentary opinion in deciding its contents. The code will provide guidelines on a range of issues including, not least, guidance for those providing treatment on how to take account of the welfare of any child born as a result of treatment covered by the Bill and of any existing children.
All hon. Members will agree that the inclusion of the recognition of the welfare of children—a point that was important to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—which was agreed in another place, is an important improvement in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) referred to surrogacy and to a constituency case. The status of genetic parents if children are born to surrogate mothers under the present law may soon be determined by the courts. It would serve no useful purpose for me to speculate further on the position under the present law. The House will be aware that the Government's policy is that legislation should not encourage surrogacy arranged privately or on a non-commercial basis. The Bill provides that surrogacy arrangements will be unenforceable. I am sure that the Committee will come back to the points made by my right hon. Friend's constituents and to their experience.
The Bill covers an area in which there is currently no statutory control. I recognise that there are and will remain, strongly and sincerely held differing views about these complex and sensitive issues. We all agree that they are of great importance to the society in which we live. The Government believe that there should be a comprehensive legislative framework to cover the new procedures and to


provide for the legal status of children born as a result of them. Clearly, that must be in the public interest and the interest of the individuals involved.
We are committed to ensuring that the legislation provides a coherent framework which is properly understood, commands full public confidence and serves the needs of our society. I hope and believe that all right hon. and hon. Members share that aim.
In his opening speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State emphasised that the Bill is the result of a lengthy process of widespread consultation, discussion and debate. Some preliminary views have been expressed about several central issues such as embryo research. The Government are anxious that Parliament should decide on these complex and often controversial questions in the light of as much information as possible. It is important that we have all had time fully to consider and reflect on the views put forward. We wanted a mature judgment to be made on the matter—mature because the opportunity was provided for a full assessment of the facts and a sustained debate on the ethical, scientific, legal and social questions.
The speeches that we have heard today putting the arguments on both sides of the main issues, particularly for and against research, have been evenly divided, especially among Back Benchers. They demonstrated the authority and views of many people.
The Government believe that it is essential that a statutory framework of control should be established and that the time is right for a decision to be made on what those controls should be on the matters of conscience in the Bill. That decision should reflect the individual views of each right hon. and hon. Member. My right hon. and learned Friend has made clear the position in respect of Ministers. The Bill provides the mechanism for those decisions, and on that basis I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Committal)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That

(a) Clause 11 and Schedule 2, and
(b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than 20th April and relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners,

be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
As the House already appreciates, the Bill is not only important but unusual in many respects. That can be judged from the fact that the House must consider tonight not one but two motions about the way in which the Bill should be handled at Committee stage. I propose to keep distinct the separate reasons for the two motions. I shall deal first with that which I have just moved. Its purpose is to ensure that major aspects arising from the Bill that are plainly matters of individual conscience will be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House.
The arrangements for splitting a Bill between a Standing Committee and a Committee of the whole House are well known to us all from the proceedings on the Finance Bill. The reason for proposing arrangements of that kind for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill are equally clear.
On major matters of conscience of the kind with which the Bill is concerned, it would be almost impossible for debates and votes in Standing Committee to reflect adequately the range and balance of opinions in the House as a whole. For that reason, it is right to have a Committee stage that can take account of those special factors. Hence the special motion.
The fundamental issue of conscience in the Bill relates to whether embryo research should be allowed within closely defined limits or prohibited altogether. That topic has occupied most of the time of the House on Second Reading. For that reason, the motion provides that clause 11 and schedule 2, which deal with that aspect, will be considered by a Committee of the whole House.
An equally difficult issue, touched on earlier today, is the medical termination of pregnancy. I am advised that it falls within the scope of the Bill, although it does not appear on the face of the Bill at present. Given recent parliamentary history on that subject, as well as remarks made on Second Reading, it is realistic to assume that amendments will be moved in relation to that topic. It would be virtually impossible to make meaningful progress in a Standing Committee selected in the ordinary way after Second Reading. For that reason, on that aspect as well we need a clear view of the whole House. My motion will make that possible.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his consultations with all interested parties. Will he confirm that, following separate debates on the Floor of the House, it is unlikely that those


topics will be returned to? Will the decisions made on the Floor of the House in that respect remain more or less binding and be unaffected by the remaining Committee or Report stages? Can the Leader of the House also confirm that the membership of the Standing Committees will not be selected until the debates on the Floor of the House have taken place, so that the results of the two Divisions will be known before the Standing Committee is constituted?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter question is certainly yes. The composition of the Standing Committee will be decided after the House as a whole has reached a decision on the two matters in question, and it should therefore reflect the outcome of those two debates. The intention is that the topics covered by those two days of debate on the Floor of the House will not recur in Standing Committee upstairs —although it would be possible to return to them on Report.

Mr. Bob Cryer: A moment ago, the Leader of the House said that the question of abortion does not occur in the long title of the Bill. Is he proposing that the long title should be changed to accommodate that? In what way would that be done, given that it would be an extremely unusual procedure?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not proposing any change in the long title, as I am advised that, as presently drafted, it would allow for amendments on that topic to be tabled. It is on that basis that the topic of abortion, the medical termination of pregnancy, might also come before the House.
In addition, in order to ensure orderly proceedings, the House will see that my motion specifies the date by which amendments to clause 11 and schedule 2 and to any new clauses or new schedules are put down for consideration by the whole House. Once the two key debates have been held in a Committee of the whole House, I believe that the rest of the Bill can and should be considered in a Standing Committee whose composition can reflect, as far as possible, the decisions taken by the House as a whole.
The remaining clauses and schedules are concerned, often in considerable detail, with introducing a licensing system and making clear the legal status of certain children. I believe that there is general agreement that those provisions are needed, although there may be real debate on exactly how they should be achieved.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the reasons for a Committee of the whole House. There might be a reason connected with that for limiting such consideration to two days, as on the motion now arising. In another motion that he is proposing to move, can he tell us why there should be another innovation, in the shape of the limitation of time in Committee? Is this not a separate innovation? Why is he proposing that in addition to the timetable motion for consideration on the Floor?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall deal with that when I deal with the timetable motion, but, in so far as it is an innovation, it is a combined set of arrangements to enable the Bill to be considered first of all with a sensible allocation of time downstairs and a further sensible period upstairs before it comes back to the Floor of the House. In

a way, that suggestion is responding to the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure for a whole timetable to be contemplated at the outset of a Bill.

Mr. Spearing: Ah.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of the hon. Gentleman for such a revolutionary proposal.
All such matters are properly matters for the Standing Committee, but there will be an opportunity for the whole House to review the results of that on Report.
As Leader of the House, I emphasise that my main concern is to allow an orderly discussion of the issues in the Bill, including those that raise matters of conscience. I have explained the general arrangements I have proposed to that end. To assist the House further, I intend to take two additional steps on the embryo research and abortion issues.
On embryo research, I propose to table, in my name as Leader of the House, a set of amendments designed to provide the House with an exactly similar choice on whether to allow embryo research under controlled conditions as the choice that was before another place. The House will recall that the Bill arrived in another place with two alternative clauses. The other place decided in favour of embryo research under specified conditions. The amendments I shall table will allow this House, if it so wishes, either to reverse that choice or, if it prefers, to uphold it, while preserving the other elements in the Bill.
I emphasise, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he opened the debate, that the amendments are not designed to reflect my personal view, still less the view of the Government. The Government continue to remain neutral on the embryo research question. When the time comes, the amendments will be moved briefly and neutrally. It will be for the House, on a free vote, to decide the fate of those amendments. The House will exercise the same choice as was exercised in another place.
Having reflected further on the details of abortion in the light of today's debate, I shall bring forward a new clause on the time limits for abortion, designed to provide a sound basis for subsequent debate and amendment. I shall do that, not on the Government's behalf or representing my own view, but in my position as Leader of the House. The new clause will not reflect the Government's view on abortion, but will be designed purely to help the House to discuss and resolve that difficult issue. I shall wish to reflect on today's debate before deciding the contents of the new clause.

Mr. Robin Cook: In that passage, the Leader of the House has drawn a clear distinction between embryo research and the termination of pregnancy. In the Bill's long title, there are many references to embryo research. Will he guide the House to the line in the long title which has led him to the view that it would be proper to debate the termination of pregnancy within the terms of the long title or the context of the Bill?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The first two lines—essentially the second—of the long title, I am advised, represents the foundation of that debate. That advice is well founded and the object of the exercise is to enable the House to exercise


a sensible choice on that matter as the second main item of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. I shall table the new clauses as soon as I can.
I hope that the House will agree that the motion, handled in the way that I have described—and which represents the result of widespread discussion in all parts of the House—will provide a sensible and necessary organisation of the way the House may think through the principal, ethical questions which arise, or are likely to arise, from the Bill. On that basis, I ask the House to agree with my motion.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I am aware that the Leader of the House has done his best to tackle the procedural difficulties which, I fear, the Government have heaped on themselves by introducing new words into the long title to allow abortion to be debated. I am aware that he has tried to consult widely and sort out that procedural point, but I oppose the procedure motion and I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
I shall do so not because I believe that clause 11 should be taken in Committee. I agree that the first part of the procedure motion would be handled more tidily and cleanly on the Floor of the House, and that that would underline the Government's commitment to give all hon. Members an opportunity to participate. If it is taken upstairs, it will cloud other issues in the Bill—which, I repeat, are important and should be considered. The Minister was kind enough to refer to other parts of the Bill.
The second part of the motion, which has already been referred to, is very worrying:
(b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order paper not later than 20th April and relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners
should be part of the procedure motion and be taken on the Floor of the House. This is where I profoundly disagree, as, I think, will many of my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has already referred to a number of matters that she might have raised if there had been a wider and separate discussion about abortion. We can all say that. In my opening speech, I spelled out why I did not believe that abortion should be spatchcocked into a Bill about an entirely different matter. I shall not go over those arguments again. Suffice it to say that there is no place in what I believe is a humanitarian piece of legislation—despite the extension of the long title—for amendments on a wholly different subject.
Many people outside have been confused and diverted from the main points of the Bill by their opposition to abortion being included in it. So I shall vote against the procedural motion and I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby. That is our only opportunity to register our extreme disapproval of the inclusion of abortion. We should like the Bill, as happened in the Lords, to stand on its own without being confused by this other issue.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are only two people who can give advice —that was the word that he used—to the Leader of the House. You are one; the other is the Clerk of the House —or one of his senior colleagues. Did you give the Leader

of the House the advice that he claims to have had? I credit you and the Clerk with too much wisdom to have confused the words "embryo" and "foetus". The title of the Bill says nothing about foetuses. Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman get his advice from? Some of us think that, linguistically, medically and scientifically, it is bad advice, whoever gave it.

Mr. Speaker: I was not consulted on that matter. I must now put the committal motion—

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were not consulted, where did the Leader of the House get his advice? If he did not get it from you, he had better take personal responsibility for it.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I heard the Leader of the House state that he had himself taken advice on the matter.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 135.

Division No. 152]
[10.16 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Alton, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Crowther, Stan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David


Ashby, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David
Day, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dixon, Don


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Emery, Sir Peter


Benyon, W.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evennett, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Fearn, Ronald


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fookes, Dame Janet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Foster, Derek


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butler, Chris
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Canavan, Dennis
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sydney
Gow, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
O'Brien, William


Hannam, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hawkins, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Home Robertson, John
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Reid, Dr John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, George


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lambie, David
Sims, Roger


Lamond, James
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Keith


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speller, Tony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lilley, Peter
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis


McAvoy, Thomas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McGrady, Eddie
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon J.D. (S'ford)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mallon, Seamus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Miller, Sir Hal
Tripper, David


Mills, Iain
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David
Vaz, Keith


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wallace, James


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





Watts, John
Worthington, Tony


Wheeler, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. David Lightbown and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Woodcock, Dr. Mike





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Kennedy, Charles


Allen, Graham
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Leighton, Ron


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Lewis, Terry


Barron, Kevin
Loyden, Eddie


Beckett, Margaret
McAllion, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McCartney, Ian


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Bidwell, Sydney
McLeish, Henry


Blunkett, David
Maclennan, Robert


Boateng, Paul
Madden, Max


Boyes, Roland
Marek, Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Maxton, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Meacher, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morley, Elliot


Cohen, Harry
Mowlam, Marjorie


Coleman, Donald
Mullin, Chris


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Neale, Gerrard


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, Dave


Cousins, Jim
O'Neill, Martin


Cryer, Bob
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Prescott, John


Dobson, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Doran, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Redmond, Martin


Eadie, Alexander
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Eastham, Ken
Richardson, Jo


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rogers, Allan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Rooker, Jeff


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Ruddock, Joan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flynn, Paul
Short, Clare


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Snape, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Soley, Clive


Gordon, Mildred
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hardy, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Haynes, Frank
Turner, Dennis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Walley, Joan


Henderson, Doug
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hinchliffe, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hoyle, Doug
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Ingram, Adam
Ms. Hilary Armstrong.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That

(a) Clause 11 and Schedule 2, and
(b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than 20th April and relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners,

be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.

Committee tomorrow.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will forgive us for being inquisitive about the advice given by the Leader of the House. Will you confirm that the Clerks —both here and in the other place—gave advice on the matter? If they did, is it not stretching the English language a bit far to say that the foetus could be covered by any subsequent development of the embryo? Such an extension could cover any aspect of human activity. What advice was the Leader of the House given? I think that the House is entitled to know.

Mr. Speaker: What I said to the hon. Gentleman was that my advice had not been sought. I have no doubt, however, that the Leader of the House took advice, and the same advice is available to every hon. Member.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The advice was exactly as anticipated, from the Clerk to both Houses in both places.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Allocation of Time Motion relating to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY BILL [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been thus signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for payments by the Secretary of State towards the expenses of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority established by the Act.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Time For Committee

1.(1) The Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the matters in respect of which the Bill is committed there shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to those proceedings not later than 19th April.

(3) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

(4) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House, except the matters in respect of which the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, on or before 22nd May.

(5) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on 22nd May may continue until Eleven o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 23rd May.

Time for Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 6th June.

Business Committee

3.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in paragraph 1(2) or 2(2) of this Order, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which the Bill or any new Clauses or new Schedules are to be considered in Committee of the whole House or on consideration, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Procedure in Standing Committee

4.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which the Bill or any new Clauses or new Schedules are to be considered in Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Report of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or recommitted) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No.14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for one hour after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No.20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of one hour.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of one hour.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No.14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Procedure at time for Conclusion of proceedings

9. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings, other than proceedings in Committee of the whole House on any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners, which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper, whether in the name of a Minister of the Crown or not, which is moved or made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

10.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings in Committee of the whole House on any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair:
(b) in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a)—

(i) the Questions on any amendments selected by the Chairman, being amendments moved to the Clause or Schedule or moved to amendments to the Clause or Schedule;

(ii) the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill;

(c) in the case of any other new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chairman, being a Clause or Schedule for which a motion is made—

(i) the Question that the Clause or Schedule be read a second time;
(ii) the Questions on any amendments selected by the Chairman, being ameddments moved to the Clause or Schedule or moved to amendments to the Clause or Schedule;
(iii) the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not require the Question on any Motion or amendment to be put unless the Chairman considers it appropriate to do so or the Question has already been proposed from the Chair.

1l.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 9 or 10 of this order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sitting of the House.

(2) if an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing of a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedins on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) if on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

14.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or


otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

15. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords];
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

This is an unusual step to be taking, but that is because this is an unusual Bill. The motion has not been tabled because of the slow rate of progress in Committee, as is often the case, but at the outset of detailed consideration of the Bill.

It is designed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Members below the Gangway either to leave the Chamber or to listen to the Leader of the House.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The motion is designed to enable the House to debate the Bill in a structured and reasonable way. In no sense is it designed to curtail debate. It therefore should not be described as a guillotine motion. In the best sense of the word, it is a timetable motion. On that basis, I venture to hope that it is not only an unusual motion but one that will command general if not universal assent.
There is a strong Government commitment to carry through the Bill. It deals with an aspect of life that has been radically changed by medical and scientific advance in recent times. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health said, at present there is a legislative vacuum that needs to be filled. The Bill and the debates that it is calculated to provide are designed to achieve that objective.
The House has just agreed that consideration of the Bill in Committee should be split. The allocation of time motion is the next logical step. We wish to ensure, in Standing Committee and in particular in Committee of the whole House, that we can achieve adequate consideration of the Bill's provisions and of amendments that may be tabled to alter or to add to them.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As hon. Members have experienced use of the English language which, to say the least, was slightly unusual, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the motion will not be used to curtail other aspects of the Bill? Many hon. Members will be unhappy that debate on a Bill that clearly is about embryology should be expanded. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is advocating an unusual form of timetabling, but I hope that he will understand that it does not meet with universal approval.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The approach that I am commending has been the subject of wide consultation. A substantial amount of time will be allocated for

consideration in Standing Committee. We wish to ensure that the House is able to reach conclusions on the issues involved.
It is very much in the interests of all hon. Members, on difficult matters of conscience such as this, that they should try to reach clear and orderly conclusions. The debates need to be full, although they need not be drawn out to interminable length. If the motion is accepted by the House, it will achieve those objectives.
The motion allows two days in a Committee of the whole House, to be brought to a conclusion at 11 pm on each day. The Business Committee will decide, in the usual way, the allocation of available time on the Floor, but the Government intend the first day to be devoted to discussion on clause 11 and consequential amendments to schedule 2. We propose that the second day should be allocated to discussion of any amendments on the medical termination of pregnancy.
I should re-emphasise that, like their predecessors, the Government take no collective stance on these moral questions and have made it clear that any amendments will be the subject, among Conservative Members, of a free vote. The arrangements that I propose do not reflect a Government view. They are entirely designed to enable the House to reach orderly decisions.
Dealing thoroughly with those two topics in advance of consideration of the rest of the Bill will, I hope, have other advantages. The selection of the Standing Committee is likely to be less difficult once the House has expressed its mind on the key questions, and the substance of the debate will give the Committee a useful steer, which will help to keep it generally in line with the views of the House.
The motion then proposes that the debates in Standing Committee should be completed by 22 May. I believe that that will allow sufficient time for a discussion of amendments on the parts of the Bill which are not to be considered by the Committee of the whole House. The Business Sub-Committee will ensure that the various parts of the Bill are given a reasonable share of the time available so that the main points at issue can be thoroughly debated and determined. The motion then provides for two full days in the House for Report and Third Reading. As the main issues of conscience will already have been voted on by the whole House in Committee, once again that should allow ample time.
The Bill raises some complex and difficult issues, but it cannot be regarded as one of exceptional length or complexity. The timetable motion will enable the House and the Standing Committee to give full and orderly consideration to an important measure. It should enable us to reach clear conclusions on the difficult ethical issues involved and on the ways in which these new medical and scientific developments should be treated in detail. I have no doubt that this is the right course for the House to adopt. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not want to delay the House too long, although I should say that—perhaps unknown to many hon. Members—this timetable motion is not just unusual but, as far as I know, unique and could in future be used as a precedent. Before it is passed, we should carefully consider the implications.
There is a well-known difference of view in the House, which has persisted for some years, about the effectiveness


of debate in Committee. There are those who believe that the Government should get their business through and that the best means of achieving the Government's aim and orderly consideration of a Bill in Committee is by the House determining a timetable before it refers the Bill to Committee. I respect that view. It is expressed in the Procedure Select Committee's report, but the House has neither debated it comprehensively nor come to a decision.
There are, however, those who believe that such a practice is contrary to the best interests of Parliament, that it deprives any Opposition, of whatever colour, of one of their major weapons and that, if members of a Committee are sensible, it does not mean that proper consideration cannot be given to a Bill. I therefore submit that the merits of timetabling Bills in general has not yet been determined, because there has not been that necessary consideration.
I do not think that we should debate that matter tonight. I am questioning the necessity for a timetable for Standing Committee to be introduced as part of this timetable. We know why the Leader of the House has moved a motion for the major controversial issues to be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House—I would not dissent from that. It has been a long-established practice in Finance Bills that the major matters should be debated on the Floor of the House and then the Standing Committee deals with consequential matters. I would not necessarily dissent from the timetabling of such consideration and any amendments that may be taken. There is a very good reason why that would appear to be a sensible procedure for this Bill.
I question whether, on Second Reading, the House, even before hon. Members have discussed matters that will be raised on the Floor, should decide the date on which the Bill should be reported to the House. The Leader of the House has fully admitted that that is an innovation, but he has given no indication whether it will set a precedent or of the consequences of such a decision.
I calculate that, if the Standing Committee met on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the timetable would allow eight or nine sittings for the consideration of the supposedly non-controversial matters in the Bill. I put it to the House, however, that even matters that are not controversial are often complex and that a judgment on them may require consultation with outside bodies. The Committee may discover unexpected features of such matters during its deliberations. They may not be connected with the views on the major matters in the Bill or with amendments debated and decided on the Floor of the House. Matters relating to the efficacy of implementation are a case in point. I have given a pledge to my constituents that I shall watch carefully the machinery for the implementation of this Bill and the efficacy of its implementation. Those matters are important and are dealt with in the so-called non-controversial parts of the Bill.
I submit that it would be procedurally inadvisable for the House to take such a decision now for two reasons. The first is the one that I have given in relation to this Bill and the second is that such a decision may be used as a precedent in respect of the general argument about the timetabling of Bills. We have not yet had that argument or decided upon it. Let me give an example. Some of my hon. Friends are upset that matters relating to the termination of pregnancy are dealt with in a Bill introduced to deal with embryo research. It is most unfortuate that the

Leader of the House has attached to the Bill a timetable in respect of a big question that is not directly related to the Bill.
I am well aware that the Government want to secure the Bill's passage through Parliament. We all want that, regardless of our point of view, because at the moment there is a legal vacuum that must be filled; the whole House wants the Bill. If, as a result of a decision in Committee, one subsidiary school of thought or another wishes to delay the proceedings because it has lost the debate on the important question in Committee of the whole House, I can well understand that the Leader of the House will want the Bill to come out of Committee.
But there are many standing Committees in which such circumstances pertain. What happens? If there is tarrying in Committee and if the Committee stage appears not to be progressing at the rate that the House would wish, a simple solution can be applied. The Leader of the House can introduce a timetable motion and say, "We want to timetable the Committee stage because the whole House wants the Bill and we want it out of Committee." That is surely the solution and the safeguard that the Leader of the House seeks tonight. In other words, his fear about progress in Committee may be well founded but I suggest that his solution is wrong, for the two reasons that I have given.

Sir David Steel: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I spoke on Second Reading. I made the point that the course that he advocates destroys the legislative process because it means that the opening clauses of a Bill are discussed exhaustively and the remaining clauses not at all. Many of us believe that the timetable motion is a welcome innovation, provided—as appears to have happened in this case—that a consensus is reached on what constitutes a reasonable time for the consideration of the Bill. I have so far heard no argument to suggest that the timing proposed by the Leader of the House is unreasonable.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) intervened, because he has illustrated the very point that I was making earlier. There are general views about the timetabling of Committees. The right hon. Gentleman has views about that, to which he is fully entitled. I do not want to enter into an argument with him, but I question his phrase "reasonable time". Who is to decide what is a reasonable time in Committee when complex matters, perhaps involving scientific or medical issues in which hon. Members are not necessarily expert, may arise? If the right hon. Gentleman wants the Bill to be dealt with properly in Standing Committee—something that we all want—it does not help matters to say that the Bill should be out of Committee by 22 May.
Although I did not hear the earlier remarks of the right. hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I suspect that they verged on the main debate about timetabling instead of being of relevance to the Bill.
The motion seeks to put a time limit on days in Committee which may mean that the Committee will decide to meet more often than on Tuesdays and Thursdays and sit late into the night to conclude its business—and that is not always the best way to deal with Committee matters. It also limits us to two days for Report


and Third Reading. Matters other than the controversial issues relating to the working of the Bill may need more time on consideration and Third Reading.
Timetabling consideration of the Bill on the Floor of the House is going too far. If the Bill is obstructed, the remedy lies with the Leader of the House, and perhaps even I would agree with that remedy. However, it is not clear that that remedy is necessary, and the motion is premature. I ask hon. Members who believe in parliamentary democracy and the freedom of this House to discuss matters, unless and until a case is made for truncating debate, to vote against this timetabling motion.

Sir David Price: I want to make a short, but I hope pertinent, point that should appeal to the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who intervened on points of order. I do not understand how we can meaningfully discuss any part of the Bill, and particularly clause 11 and schedule 2, without discussing clause 1 first, as that defines the terms that are used.
Clause 1 is headed "Principal terms used". I will not deploy the arguments that I would deploy if we were discussing the definition of "embryo". However, my point is pertinent to discussing the remainder of the Bill. I do not believe that we can pluck out certain bits and discuss them until we have settled what we mean by the terms. It is clear that there is already confusion about that.
In relation to clause 11, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House referred to putting conscience into the law. However, if conscience is to be meaningful in law, it must be concise. Will my right hon. and learned Friend amend the arrangements so that we may refer to and amend clause 1 if necessary? That should be the business of the whole House. Before the Committee discusses the remainder of the Bill in detail, hon. Members should know what they are talking about. That is a matter of definition. Given that my right hon. and learned Friend had a classical and scientific education, he will know the need for precision in construe.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am flattered by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) to my classical and scientific education. However, even that did not convince me of his point.
The Bill is relatively unusual, and in the modern style, in having its definition clause at the beginning rather than at the end. In most Bills that have been debated in the House over many years, it has been a matter of routine for the House to debate the definition clauses after it has debated everything else. If that happens in this case, it will not be unusual or earth-shattering. The House will certainly be able to do it in that way.

Sir David Price: Do I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend will allow hon. Members to discuss clause 1 and that there would be greater virtue in putting the definition at the beginning of the Bill? As I understand it, we shall discuss clause 11 and schedule 2—schedule 2 will be very detailed—before we discuss clause 1.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said, that will be in accordance with the normal practice on many Bills over many years. The definition clause is normally at the end of a Bill. I have often argued for definition clauses to be at the beginning of Bills, and this change is welcome, but there is no reason to be worried about it.
As for the more general points on the timetable motion, I was glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) acknowledged that my fears were well-founded and that it was sensible to look ahead pre-emptively at the management of the Bill. I was grateful for the intervention by the former leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who said that my purpose was legitimate. However, I emphasise that I have not introduced the motion out of some whimsical fantasy of my own. I have introduced it after widespread consultation with people on behalf of all parties.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is a free vote.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course it is a free vote on the substance, but for the free vote on the substance to take place I have canvassed very widely to determine the best way of doing it.
I was asked how long the process will take and who will decide how long it will take. I have done my best to ascertain how long it should reasonably take. I am offering that view to the House, and the House will decide. The House should be willing to respond favourably to my suggestion, which is based on a widespread canvassing of opinion that has not been challenged in any way.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Surely the point is simple. It is to be a free vote. Every individual hon. Member should have the right to decide according to his or her own conscience and his or her own information. It is useless to say that there has been wide consultation when each individual must be responsible for his or her own vote. The Leader of the House has not consulted, because he has used what is known as the usual machinery, which, frankly, does not always consult hon. Members who want to have a say.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: With respect, the hon. Lady misses the point. Of course the votes on the matters of substance will be free votes, but the vote now is how we set a framework for those votes to be taken. I have canvassed opinion, not just through the usual channels, whom the hon. Lady chooses to regard as disreputable and inaccurate. I have not canvassed all 650 hon. Members, but I have canvassed a wide range of opinion and I have come to the conclusion that I now place before the House. There is now an opportunity for hon. Members to vote on the proposal that I now leave before the House.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with the Leader of the House that, on the general difficulties of bifurcation and bringing a Bill into a Committee of the whole House for two days, even for a timetable of two days, he may have consulted to some extent. On balance, that is probably the right solution. Can he assure the House that he carried out equal consultation on the specific features that I referred to in my speech? Could not potential difficulties be better dealt with by a post-Second Reading timetable motion, if it were necessary? That knowledge would surely be in the minds of hon. Members on the Committee.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is a post-Second Reading timetable motion. The essential difference in what I am now proposing and what is more often the case was identified by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. The normal way of arriving at a timetable motion is for the House or the Committee to grind slowly through the first clause—take days and weeks doing that —and then find itself hurrying like mad to consider the rest of the Bill. The Procedure Committee recommended a different approach to avoid that.
In the light of that advice and in the light of the conclusions that I have arrived at, having talked to several people about it, I see no reason why one should not attempt a common sense way of dealing with this Bill. I am grateful for taking the hon. Member for Newham, South as far as I have in agreeing with me. I commend my motion to the House as the most sensible way to proceed.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 62.

Division No. 153]
[11 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evennet, David


Allason, Rupert
Fallon, Michael


Alton, David
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Fearn, Ronald


Amos, Alan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Foster, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gill, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodland, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Canavan, Dennis
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Conway, Derek
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howells, Geraint


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
Kennedy, Charles





Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Robertson, George


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lambie, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamond, James
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, Sir William


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speller, Tony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McAvoy, Thomas
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macdonald, Calum A.
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maclennan, Robert
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Summerson, Hugo


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tripper, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Wallace, James


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Norris, Steve
Warren, Kenneth


Paisley, Rev Ian
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Wigley, Dafydd


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Greg Knight and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Irvine Patnick.




NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Haynes, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Henderson, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Kinnick, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Leighton, Ron


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris






O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Richardson, Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Young, Mrs Audrey


Rooker, Jeff



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
and Ms. Hilary Armstrong.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

That the draft Transport (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Immunisation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. John Hannam: This Adjournment debate gives me the opportunity to draw attention to a matter of extreme importance in the context of the health of our nation. Vaccinations against serious diseases have been part of our lives for many years, and the worldwide campaign against smallpox, polio and diphtheria has resulted in the near eradication of those awful illnesses.
However, when it comes to other diseases such as whooping cough, measles and rubella, the picture is not as rosy, and I shall explain why the Department of Health should go further in promoting greater take-up of immunisation.
In 1940, before the vaccination programme got under way in England and Wales, 857 children died of measles and 678 of whooping cough. Many more were left disabled and ill. In the 1970s, when the whooping cough vaccine scare peaked as a consequence of the widespread publicity given to the vaccine damage compensation campaign, vaccination rates dropped to 30 per cent. at one point. and the old cycle of whooping cough epidemics began to return.
As recently as 1986, there were 36,500 notifications of whooping cough, which probably represented some 40 per cent. of the actual number of cases. That year, there were more cases of whooping cough in the United Kingdom than in the United States of America. Since then, matters have improved and immunisation rates have increased—although it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of national immunisation policy year after year without relevant records of the number of deaths or cases of disablement caused through non-vaccination. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health to provide those figures, so that a benchmark can be established for years to come.
I confirm from my own discussions with constituents in recent days that families whose children were not given the whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s because of the scare campaign report without exception that there is among their children a high incidence of asthma following earlier attacks of whooping cough. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware of the longer-term effects of such diseases, even if they are not fatal. I certainly want to avoid a
long-drawn-out public battle for compensation for those very few who suffered possible reaction to the earlier vaccines, but it must make sense to provide adequate compensation and to ensure the efficacy of the whole immunisation programme.
I am pleased to note that figures published recently by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary show a further improvement in uptake rates in England and Wales, to 80 per cent. for measles vaccination, although that still means that one child in five remains unprotected, and to 75 per cent. for whooping cough, though with one child in four left unprotected.
The World Health Organisation's target for Europe in 1990 is 90 per cent., so Britain still falls well short. Worse still, the averages conceal substantial variations from district to district, with take-up in inner-city areas such as Hackney and Newham in London as low as 51 per cent., and in the low 60s in Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester

and Blackburn. For some groups, particularly ethnic ones and those in inner cities, this means that one in two children in such areas are not being vaccinated. Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason given for non-vaccination is usually apathy rather than resistance to it? The result in human terms is tragic if children die or suffer disability from preventable diseases.
It was because of a growing concern among many people working in medical research that Action Research for the Crippled child, on whose council I sit, last year commissioned an in-depth study by Professor Catherine Peckham into the factors influencing immunisation uptake in childhood. Her excellent report was published in April 1989. My purpose in seeking this debate tonight is to re-acquaint the Department of Health with the key recommendations in the Peckham report and to seek my hon. Friend's assurance that they are being given the most urgent consideration with a view to achieving and, more importantly, sustaining total protection from the preventable, infectious diseases of childhood. It is ironic that we spend millions of pounds researching new vaccines when we are not utilising the ones that we already have to full effect.
The Peckham study was based in 16 different district health authorities and random samples from general practitioners, consultant paediatricians, health visitors and clinical medical officers working in child health were taken. Some 2,071 health professionals were contacted and 86 per cent. responded. In addition, from each district, a sample of two-year-old children was drawn from six randomly selected general practices. That age group was chosen because the children should have completed their primary course of immunisation and the parents would have recent memory of it. Of 3,871 parents approached. 87 per cent. responded.
The Peckham report has effectively pointed the way for us to go if we really intend to translate a 99 per cent. parental consent for their child to be included in the immunisation system into achieving the World Health Organisation target of 90 per cent. actual uptake by next year.
The principal findings of the study were clear. First, health professionals demonstrated uncertainty about the contra-indications to measles and whooping cough immunisation. Their responses indicated inconsistency in the interpretation of contra-indications within and between professional groups. That has two important consequences—an unacceptable proportion of children are being denied immunisation for invalid reasons, and parents are being given conflicting advice.
Secondly, parents' attitudes had a marked effect on measles and pertussis vaccine uptake. A parent who thought measles was a serious disease and that the vaccine was safe and effective was much more likely to have his child immunised than the one who thought otherwise. Perceptions of the safety of pertussis vaccine was shown to be particularly important in determining uptake of it.
Family factors found to be associated with lower uptake included a large family, the presence of a chronically ill child and lower social class. The individual perception of a disease is important and, as immunisation rates increase and the disease becomes less common, the public forget the seriousness of it and may regard it as rare and trivial.


Measles is frequently viewed as a trivial childhood illness, yet it is associated with significant morbidity and even death. It is the most common cause of death in children in remission from leukaemia.
As the study was carried out on a large randomly selected population with a very high response rate from parents and health professionals, the results can be generalised to apply to the entire country. Overall, health professionals had a positive attitude to immunisation and said that they encouraged it. One of the main obstacles to a child being immunised was the general practitioners' misconceptions about contra-indications to immunisation. It is estimated that only 1 per cent. of children have valid contra-indications to the measles vaccine and 3.5 pet cent. to the pertussis vaccine. It is clear that many children are being deprived of immunisation because health professionals inappropriately consider certain conditions or circumstances to be contra-indications.
Unless there are genuine contra-indications to vaccination—and there are few—it is irresponsible to fail to protect a child from a potentially damaging infection. The decision to withhold vaccination should be taken only after serious consideration of the consequences for the child and the community. It is partly the responsibility of practitioners to ensure that their knowledge of vaccination is up to date, but they cannot be held totally responsible for their uncertainty. Official guidelines have tended to be complicated and to leave excessive margins of doubt. I believe that the Department is intent on improving those guidelines, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that tonight.
My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a wealth of additional detail provided by the Peckham report, which I have neglected in the interests of brevity. I conclude my references to the report by drawing attention to the summary of recommendations in the letter of the director general of Action Research for the Crippled Child on 11 July 1989, which pointed specifically to two or three fundamental requirements confirmed when the report was first subjected to professional scrutiny during a workshop convened by the Prince of Wales advisory group on disability last June.
It received unequivocal support from the Prince of Wales, when he said of the workshop's conclusions:
What seems to emerge clearly (from the Peckham Report and the discussion of it) is that our performance will only improve sufficiently—and be maintained—by introducing certain basic changes to the current system.
Earlier, I mentioned the high take-up rate in the United States. There, laws require proof of immunity as a condition of school entry. The result is that, whereas the United Kingdom has 80,000 to 100,000 notifications of measles each year, the United States averaged about 1,500 to 6,000 cases each year between 1981 and 1987. In the south-west of England, in my area, in 1986 we had more cases than in the whole of the United States. It is on the basis of a proven system, linked to school entry, that this country must proceed if it is to achieve the 90 or 95 per cent. measles immunisation rate.
The policy being advocated is not compulsion but one which, at the very least, puts parents in the position of having to make a definite decision about immunising their child. That would ensure that only those children who should not be vaccinated for sound medical reasons, or

those whose parents objected strongly for other reasons, were excluded from the protection which should be their right. It is evident from the strength of parent input to the report that responsibility for immunisation shared with the parent would be welcomed.
Standard parent-held records would be necessary to achieve that and would provide the mechanism for reviewing immunisation status at regular intervals during early childhood. Children should certainly be immunised at the earliest possible age, but for those who might otherwise fall through the net, a requirement to present the immunisation record before enrolment to day care, nursery school or secondary school, would ensure review of their immunisation status. Those children found not to be immunised should be vaccinated, provided that there are no valid contra-objections or parental objections.
It is my contention, and the strongly held view of the all-party disablement group, that the linchpin in a future immunisation system will be the introduction of a health record for every child, issued on registration of birth and related only to immunisation status, perhaps not dissimilar to the international certificate of vaccination issued as a requirement for entry to many countries when smallpox was still a threat. I still have my old certificate of vaccination in my passport in case I have to produce it on a visit to some part of the world.
Once high levels of immunisation uptake have been achieved, it is essential to maintain them. One cannot rely on repeated campaigns to effect that, and we should act responsibly to ensure a mechanism for the certain protection of future generations.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the pilot study carried out by a number of health authorities and also on the accelerated schedule of primary immunisations at two, three and four months. However, I hope that he does not reply tonight that the Department is about to launch another publicity campaign. If we are to protect future generations from unnecessary death and disability, we need a straightforward policy of guidance for the practitioners and health record cards for the parents. Action Research for the Crippled Child and Catherine Peckham have shown the way, and I hope that my hon. Friend will follow their path.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for his clear presentation of this subject. The House knows of his work with the all-party disablement group, which gives him a special expertise in this matter. I know that he is concerned not only for his constituents in Exeter, but for the children of the whole population. I agree with the basic thrust of his remarks, that parents should have their children immunised. The risks that he identified, especially in relation to pertussis, are modest indeed compared with the great benefits that flow from immunisation.
I should like to give my hon. Friend the most up-to-date statistics, for which he asked. Over recent years, immunisation uptake rates have been rising and the most recently available figures—for England for the year 1988–89—show that the uptake for polio, diphtheria and tetanus vaccines is now 87 per cent., measles vaccine uptake is 80 per cent. and that for pertussis vaccine, for whooping cough, 75 per cent.


Given the rate of rise of these figures, and the fact that the measles uptake figure precedes the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, which my hon. Friend will recall is now being offered to children just about to enter school, as well as to youngsters, we now have real prospects of reaching the 90 per cent. 1990 uptake targets set by the European region of the World Health Organisation—targets that are important milestones on the road to the elimination of these diseases, which is targeted for the year 2000. We have already achieved the elimination of poliomyelitis from this country and I am pleased to report that this success is recognised by the World Health Organisation, which lists us among the category A countries in which this disease no longer exists. Some other European countries have some way to go before they achieve that recognition.
In October 1988, we launched a new combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with the objective of improving measles uptake, eliminating mumps and the congenital rubella syndrome, a serious consequence of maternal rubella infection, which leaves babies who may be born blind or deaf with congenital heart disease or mentally handicapped. Although it is too early to measure the impact of this initiative on immunisation uptake, there are other measures available to us that give us reason to consider this initiative a considerable success.
The new vaccine has been recommended for the priority groups of children—those aged 12 to 15 months—in place of the previous measles vaccine, and for those aged four to five years coming for their pre-school booster immunisations. If every such child was to be immunised, we would have needed 1·5 million doses for the period October 1988 to January 1990. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, over that same period, we distributed in excess of 3 million doses—more than twice the required amount. This enthusiastic use of vaccine suggests that it has been given not only to the priority children but to many others, and this will interrupt transmission of measles, mumps and rubella even sooner than we predicted.
Immunisation uptake provides a sensitive indicator for performance of the provision of immunisation services, but it measures the route through which our goals will be reached. Notification of diseases, and indeed their absence, provide the outcome measures that we seek to achieve. It gives me pleasure, therefore, to be able to report how our efforts to promote immunisation are producing very encouraging results for outcomes. Since the introduction of MMR vaccine, notifications of measles have been at the lowest levels ever. When 1990 is compared with 1988 and 1986—these are the appropriate years for comparison because of the cycle of the affliction—we find that notifications for the appropriate months are about 90 per cent. fewer than four years ago—a remarkable achievement. Every week there are significantly fewer children suffering the frequently underestimated and potentially very serious complications of measles.
We can see similar successes in the notifications for whooping cough. On the basis of previous epidemics, it could have been thought likely that there would be a whooping cough upsurge over the winter of 1989–90. Although notifications did rise last year, they reached their peak in the same months as the 1985 epidemic, but there were 70 per cent. fewer notifications, again suggesting that the successful promotion of immunisation has led to so many more children being protected from serious diseases.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the new contract for doctors came into force today. This is the first working day of that new contract and he will be aware that incentive payments for immunisation are built into it. I know that he supports that principle.
The incentive payments in the contract cover only three immunisations: whooping cough, diphtheria-tetanus and polio; these vaccinations tend to run together, in that they are given at the same time. DT and polio is the second and measles is the third. We use measles as a proxy for the MMR vaccination. We take whooping cough, DT, polio and measles and for children aged two on a doctor's list, we make a calculation every quarter day by averaging the doctor's success with those three lines, using the completing dose.
My hon. Friend will know that there are three doses for DT, polio and whooping cough, and we make a payment on each quarter day. If the doctor achieves a 70 per cent. target figure, a quarterly payment, which over the year adds up to £579, is made. If a 90 per cent. target figure is reached for the averages of all three, a quarterly payment, which in the coming financial year will be £1,737 for the year, will be made.
There is a second target for five-year-olds, where we measure success in relation to the second diphtheria vaccination—the booster—and also tetanus and polio. A 70 per cent. success rate brings a payment of £193 over a year, and a 90 per cent. uptake results in a payment of £579. That information may be helpful, because I do not think that we have put it on the record as clearly as I hope I have outlined.
My hon. Friend spoke about the Peckham report. Although, as I have said, uptake figures are rising, in some areas they remain too low. I think that my hon. Friend cited some inner-city areas in Liverpool and London. The Department of Health undertook careful investigation last year into the reasons for poor performance and, along with other measures, commissioned a study of the management of the immunisation programme in every health authority.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation consists of clinical professionals and is a multi-disciplinary group advising the four territorial departments of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That committee carefully considered the reasons that lay behind the difficulties preventing higher uptake and has recommended that the schedule of primary immunisations be changed to an accelerated schedule used in all health authorities. This new schedule will start from May. The benefits that it will offer will be the likelihood of higher acceptance rates, earlier protection against whooping cough, fewer opportunities for immunisation to be postponed because of minor illnesses and greater convenience for parents as the immunisations will be given over the period when infants are brought regularly to clinics and before mothers return to work.
From memory, I am referring now to immunisations at two, three and four months after birth, as opposed to the longer period which currently exists and which can range up to 11 months or more. Professor Peckham has welcomed that change. After Easter, the Department of Health will issue a new edition of the memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease". That is a green document which I am sure my hon. Friend has read. It provides details of the new schedule along with authoritative guidance on contra-indications, both


genuine and false, and adverse events associated with immunisation. I shall send a copy of this document to my hon. Friend and also place a copy in the Library. I hope that, when he sees it, he will feel that I have answered his questions about greater guidance being given on contra-indications, which simply means medical reasons for children not being able to receive appropriate vaccinations.
In the autumn, there will be a national advertising campaign, promoted by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority, to promote immunisation as the safest way to protect one's child. The campaign, which is being piloted in the Granada Television region, will use television advertising, along with material in newspapers and magazines.
Last year, Action Research for the Crippled Child published a valuable report on immunisation. Professor Catherine Peckham carried out the inquiry on its behalf. The report confirmed previous research that identified poor knowledge of immunisation contra-indications, undue fears over adverse effects, especially associated with pertussis vaccine for whooping cough, and lack of consistency of immunisation advice.
The Peckham report made recommendations, some of which relate to matters at health authority level that the Department of Health would support. The forthcoming change of the immunisation schedule will result in all children being given their immunisations according to an agreed national timetable—one of the report's main recommendations.
The report also recommends the availability of parent-held records of child health that would document the immunisation that a child has received. My hon. Friend's arguments were very persuasive. I am grateful to him for underlining the value that he believes a parent-held record card would provide. I am persuaded by his arguments. Such cards are on trial. My Department will be most interested in the outcome of the trials. I shall follow the results of those trials with a close personal interest. Furthermore, the Department of Health will shortly be issuing new immunisation record cards for all family practitioners to ensure that they are able to keep accurate immunisation records on all their patients.
Although the Peckham report does not recommend legal compulsion or school exclusion of unimmunised children—it recommends that, before school entry, the

immunisation records of all children should be checked and that unimmunised children should be offered immunisation, a process facilitated by parent-held records —there are countries such as the United States where immunisation is, in effect, compulsory. Yet there are, equally, countries such as Holland and the Scandinavian countries where the uptake rates are exceptionally high without any form of compulsion. Moreover, those high rates are achieved before the age of two—that is, before the transmission of the appropriate diseases.
Although the United States policy initially led to dramatic reductions in measles, mumps and rubella notification, the United States is presently experiencing the worst outbreak of measles for many years. Many of these cases are occurring in children below the age of school entry, whose parents have delayed immunisation until it is compulsory. The lesson, perhaps, of the problem is that school entry measures may be too late to interrupt measles transmission and that the greatest successes will come from the attainment of the highest levels of uptake as early in life as possible—preferably without compulsion, but with the full support of doctors and parents alike.
My hon. Friend referred to the problem in the inner cities, where the uptake rate is undeniably low. The new contract which runs from today provides for much higher allowances—the so-called deprivation allowances—to be paid to the general practitioner for having a patient list in such areas. They amount to £8·50 a head, which can provide up to £17,000 a year for a doctor with an average patient list. That is a real additional resource to enable doctors to fight hard to increase the uptake of immunisation and cervical screening.
I understand my hon. Friend's views on publicity and campaigning. However, I believe that they have a part to play, in addition to the national campaign in the autumn, to which I referred. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall reflect carefully on whether we need to take specific measures in relation to the ethnic minority community, particularly Asian mothers who, in some parts of the country, may need to be persuaded about the value of immunising their children. Some success has been achieved, but more needs to be done.
I join my hon. Friend in underlining the central message that, for a safe childhood, parents must, for heaven's sake, immunise their children.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.